assessment in physical education jenna rae starck …
TRANSCRIPT
ASSESSMENT IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION
by
JENNA RAE STARCK
OLEG A. SINELNIKOV, COMMITTEE CHAIR
K. ANDREW R. RICHARDS, COMMITTEE CO-CHAIR
MATTHEW D. CURTNER-SMITH
ELIZABETH A. WOODRUFF
MICHAEL A. LAWSON
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Kinesiology
in the Graduate School of
The University of Alabama
TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA
2018
Copyright Jenna Rae Starck 2018
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ABSTRACT
The utilization and practice of assessment in physical education has recently been
targeted as the missing ingredient in the teaching-learning process. Although some progress has
been made towards the use of alternative assessment, preservice and inservice teachers’
assessment practices are far from being educationally productive. Therefore, guided by
occupational socialization theory and the assessment literacy framework, this dissertation
explored how preservice and inservice teachers understand and enact beliefs of assessment.
In study 1, a research-based conceptual framework is presented for helping preservice
teachers develop assessment literacy. Arguments for developing assessment literacy are couched
in occupational socialization theory to help overcome barriers to the adoption and use of
assessment practices. Further, a four phase model is provided for physical education teacher
education programs to integrate assessment progressively across a program toward the goal of
promoting assessment literacy.
Study 2 investigated the influence of workplace factors and teachers’ conceptions of
assessment on the extent to which they report integrating quality assessment into their practice.
Survey data from 90 inservice physical education teachers from Alabama were analyzed through
Ordinary Least Squares regression. Specifically, teachers’ perceived quality of assessment was
regressed on workplace factors (perceived organizational support, marginalization, and class
size) and conceptions of assessment. The first regression model (adjusted R2 = .08) did not
include any significant predictors, therefore a second was run to examine if workplace factors
and conceptions of assessment could be used to predict the belief that assessment improves
iii
education. In the second model (adjusted R2 = .66) the following variables were significant:
assessment makes schools accountable, assessment makes students accountable, assessment is
irrelevant, marginalization, and perceived organizational support.
Study 3 investigated how six preservice physical education teachers understood and
enacted the message system (assessment, pedagogy, and curriculum) while employing the Sport
Education model. The model was taught to elementary students during a seven week early field
experience, totaling 540 instructional minutes. Data collection methods comprised of interviews
(formal, focus group, and informal), passive participation observation, weekly journals, critical
incidents, document collection, and video recordings of Sport Education lessons. Results of the
study included three themes: (a) the structure and features of the Sport Education model and
informal assessment were driving forces of instructional decisions, (b) the Sport Education
model was a driving force of formal assessment, and (c) although valuing assessment, the
preservice teachers demonstrated low literacy upon implementation of assessment.
iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends who have provided me with
unwavering love and support throughout my academic career. Thank you all for all you have
done for me. I am grateful for your words of wisdom and positively; I cannot express how
appreciative I am to have such amazing people in my life. A special thank you to Ward for his
ability to listen and support me each day. I also dedicate this dissertation to my brother Shaun
and my grandfather Neal for always believing in me and holding me to the highest standard.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many people that have contributed to my construction and completion of this
dissertation. Without the support and guidance of these individuals I would not have been able to
complete this dissertation. First, I would like to acknowledge and thank my dissertation co-chairs
for literally guiding me through this process and supporting me to research a topic of my choice.
Dr. Richards, I cannot begin to thank you for your time, effort, kind words, and consistent
support through this process. I hope someday I can repay the favor as a mentor to students in a
similar way. Dr. Sinelnikov, from the beginning of the program, you have always been so
supportive of my growth and development. I appreciate your time, willingness, and patience in
helping me complete this dissertation but also in my development as a teacher and a researcher.
Next, I would like to thank the rest my dissertation committee members. Dr. Curtner-Smith and
Dr. Woodruff, I appreciate your continued support throughout the program and expertise towards
completion of this process! Dr. Lawson, thank you so much for your time, patience, and
feedback in helping me develop and complete this dissertation! Next, I would like to thank all of
the inservice and preservice physical education teachers for agreeing to participate in these
studies. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow graduate students and colleagues who have
provided me support on this journey!
vi
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………… ........................................................................................................ ii
DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSMENT LITERACY:
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION .........................1
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
Occupational Socialization Theory ..................................................................................................3
Preservice Teachers’ Assessment Literacy ......................................................................................6
Prioritizing Assessment Literacy during Physical Education Teacher Education ...........................9
Conclusions and Final Thoughts ....................................................................................................17
References ......................................................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 2 PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ WORKPLACE FACTORS AND
ASSESSMENT CONCEPTIONS ON PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF ASSESSMENT .........28
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................28
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................30
Methods..........................................................................................................................................38
Results ............................................................................................................................................42
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................43
vii
References ......................................................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 3 PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ ASSESSMENT LITERACY WITHIN
MODELS BASED PRACTICE .....................................................................................................60
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................60
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................61
Methods..........................................................................................................................................70
Results ............................................................................................................................................76
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................90
Implications....................................................................................................................................96
References ......................................................................................................................................99
APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................................106
APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................................107
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Four-phase conceptual framework for helping preservice teachers develop
assessment literacy during teacher education ...............................................................................26
Table 2.1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for assessment variables ....................57
Table 2.2 Regression table of conceptions of assessment influencing perceived quality of
assessment ......................................................................................................................................58
Table 2.3 Regression table of variables influencing assessment improves education ...................58
Table 3.1 Sport Education season outline ....................................................................................104
Table 3.2 Sport Education fidelity check .....................................................................................105
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 A research-based conceptual framework for helping preservice teachers develop
assessment literacy founded in occupational socialization theory .................................................27
Figure 2.1 Visual representation of the impact of occupational socialization on teachers’
perceived quality of assessment .....................................................................................................59
1
CHAPTER 1
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSMENT LITERACY: OPPORTUNITIES
FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION
Abstract
Although more nuanced understandings of assessment have been proposed in the
physical education literature, assessment practices remain relatively underdeveloped, and when
used, tend to focus on traditional, summative evaluations of learning. However, physical
education teacher education programs can be used as an intervention to help preservice teachers
develop assessment knowledge and skill. Toward this end, the purpose of this article is to
propose an evidence-based framework for helping preservice teachers develop assessment
literacy that is rooted in occupational socialization theory. The framework provides a four-phase
approach to integrating assessment into teacher education, and includes suggestions for how
physical education teacher educators can progressively help build preservice teachers’
assessment knowledge in line with the focus given to instruction and planning. These
suggestions acknowledge the technical and sociocultural aspects of learning to use assessment.
Implications are discussed along with the need to help graduating preservice teachers transfer
lessons learned into the workplace.
Keywords: teaching-learning process, physical education, pre-service training, occupational
socialization theory, school sociopolitics
1
Introduction
The last several decades have brought numerous advancements to and diversification of
our understanding of effective teaching and learning in physical education (Ennis, 2017; Kirk,
Macdonald, & O'Sullivan, 2006). Included in this progress has been the development and
refinement of pedagogical models (Sinelnikov & Hastie, 2017); the identification of teaching
strategies that reliably facilitate student learning (Rink & Hall, 2008), improve fitness levels
(McKenzie & Lounsbery, 2014), help youth develop personally and socially responsible
behavior (Wright & Burton, 2008); and strategies for evaluating and promoting student learning
(Lund & Kirk, 2010; Starck, 2017). Specifically related to student evaluation, assessment is now
viewed as a collection of observable student behaviors, student perceptions, and evidence of
student performance that requires evaluation or judgment (Hay, 2006) with the primary goal of
enhancing student learning (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). This expanded definition is
inclusive of self- and peer-assessment, process and product assessment, and alternative and
authentic assessment (DinanThompson, 2013).
Quality physical educators integrate assessment into the teaching-learning process so as
to support and promote learning (Hay & Penney, 2009), rather than conceptualizing assessment
as an isolated activity that is divorced from their regular teaching (Lund & Kirk, 2010). Given
the critical role that assessment now plays in physical educators’ practice, Hay and Penny (2013)
advocated for the development of assessment literacy in physical education as “the development
of knowledge and capacities to implement assessment and interpret the outcomes of assessment
in a manner that is critically aware and that optimized the value of assessment for all students”
(p. 74). Four related elements of assessment literacy include assessment comprehension,
assessment application, assessment interpretation, and critical engagement with assessment.
Despite numerous advancements, however, both inservice and preservice teachers continue to
2
struggle when implementing assessment regularly and in a way that promotes as well as
evaluates student learning (Collier, 2011). Many physical education programs continue to rely
heavily on traditional forms of assessment associated with dressing out, participation, passive
teacher observation, and fitness testing (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). The appropriate use
of assessment practices has, therefore, been characterized as “the missing ingredient” in physical
education practice due to the need for deeper pedagogic action in many physical education
teacher education programs (DinanThompson, 2013, p. 138).
Developing assessment literacy is, however, challenged by the ways in which individuals
are recruited and socialized into the physical education profession (Richards, Templin, & Graber,
2014). Many recruits experienced physical education programs that did not use assessment to
enhance learning and may have a difficult time imagining and designing an effective assessment
system that integrates with instruction (Lund & Kirk, 2010). Further, the culture of schools,
which often marginalizes physical education and positions it as less important than other subjects
(Richards, Templin, & Gaudreault, 2013), can make it difficult for physical educators to
implement assessment practices effectively. A classic example of this is the teacher in
O’Sullivan’s (1989) study who lamented being told by a parent that “failing gym is like failing
lunch or recess” (p. 235). Administrators may also discourage assessment and grading in
physical education because of the impact it has on students’ grade point averages (Graber, 1998),
and some teachers have class sizes so large it makes effective assessment almost impossible
(López-Pastor, Kirk, Lorente-Catalán, MacPhail, & Macdonald, 2013).
Given barriers to the implementation of quality assessment practices, physical education
teacher education (PETE) programs have a difficult challenge: they must help recruits overcome
initial impressions of assessment developed through pretraining socialization and help prepare
3
them to use assessment in environments that may present challenges (Richards et al., 2013). The
purpose of this paper, therefore, is to propose a conceptual framework for helping preservice
teachers develop assessment literacy, and to overview educational activities that can be
integrated into PETE programs toward the goal of promoting assessment literacy. Recognizing
that socialization experiences construct barriers to the adoption and use of assessment practices,
we couch our arguments within occupational socialization theory (Richards & Gaudreault, 2017;
Templin & Schempp, 1989) as a conceptual framework for understanding the recruitment,
education, and career-long socialization of physical education teachers.
Occupational Socialization Theory
Occupational socialization theory “includes all the kinds of socialization that initially
influence persons to enter the field of physical education and that later are responsible for their
perceptions and actions as teacher educators and teachers” (Lawson, 1986, p. 107). The theory is
dialectical, as it recognizes that physical education teachers have a sense of agency, which they
can use to resist the influence of individuals and institutions that seek to socialize them
(Schempp & Graber, 1992). As a result, it cannot be assumed that individuals will adopt the
beliefs and values of the physical education profession when going through PETE or joining a
school as a new teacher. Having emerged as both a theory for conducting research and a
framework for structuring teacher education and professional development (Richards &
Gaudreault, 2017), occupational socialization theory examines socialization along the three
phases of acculturation, professional socialization, and organizational socialization (Richards et
al., 2014). Organizational socialization, which focuses on career-long socialization experienced
by inservice physical education teachers, is less relevant to the current paper.
4
Acculturation, also referred to as anticipatory socialization, occurs prior to individuals’
formal decision to enter the physical education profession (Lawson, 1983). During their
formative education, potential recruits engage in an apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975)
during which they begin to form initial impressions of what it means to be a physical education
teacher by interacting with their own teachers, coaches, counselors, and parents (Betourne &
Richards, 2015). These initial experiences lead to the development of subjective theories
(Grotjahn, 1991), which represent personal understandings of what it means to teach physical
education in a school environment. Subjective theories are developed prior to formal entrance
into PETE (Richards et al., 2013) and often emphasize the practices recruits experienced during
their own physical education. For many recruits, this includes a curriculum dominated by team
sport activities delivered primarily through direct instruction and the practice style of teaching
(Flory, 2016). Further, given that many recruits do not experience assessment that is closely
aligned with and integrated into instruction (Lund & Veal, 2008), regular assessment often does
not become integrated into their subjective theories.
Recruits who decide to pursue a career teaching physical education formalize their
commitment and enter professional socialization when they enroll in a PETE program (Lawson,
1983). Given that acculturation leads some recruits to develop subjective theories of physical
education that are in conflict with PETE programming, Richards and colleagues (2013) noted
that PETE has two primary missions. First, these programs should help preservice teachers
question and challenge their initial impressions of what it means to be a physical education
teacher developed through acculturation. Related specifically to the purpose of this paper, this
includes questioning assumptions about the role of assessment in promoting and evaluating
student learning (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). The second mission of PETE is to prepare
5
preservice teachers to make the transition into school environments. This preparation includes
both technical skills related to planning, delivering instruction, and conducting assessment, as
well as preparation for the realities associated with teaching physical education in contexts that
sometimes marginalize its contributions to the overall mission of schooling (Lux & McCullick,
2011). This preparation includes navigating relationships with students, colleagues,
administrators, and parents who may not value assessment in physical education, while also
working through challenges related to teaching in suboptimal working environments (e.g., large
classes, insufficient facilities and equipment; Richards, Housner, & Templin, in press).
Evidence indicates that PETE programs are more effective at accomplishing the
aforementioned missions when they are field-based (Richards et al., 2013). Such programs
provide preservice teachers ample time working in authentic teaching situations during early
field experiences and student teaching (Curtner-Smith, Hastie, & Kinchin, 2008) where they are
mentored by both cooperating teachers and university faculty members (Young & MacPhail,
2015). While field experiences present some challenges in terms of managing competing
expectations and philosophies of PETE program faculty members and cooperating teachers
(Christensen & Barney, 2011), they provide preservice teachers with opportunities to practice
skills learned through on-campus methods courses in an authentic environment. This is
particularly important when it comes to implementing assessments that involve collecting
student data, analyzing the data, and reflecting on the results of assessment to understand both
student learning and teacher effectiveness (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). Reflecting on data
collected also helps preservice teachers practice making instructional decisions in light of
assessment evidence, and to further integrate assessment into the teaching-learning process
(Penney, Brooker, Hay, & Gillespie, 2009).
6
In effective PETE programs, field-based learning experiences are balanced with on-
campus opportunities for continued learning and reflection through constructivist oriented
learning strategies that promote reflection and critical thinking. Richards, Gaudreault, and
Templin (2014) overview a PETE seminar series focused on helping preservice teachers prepare
for the realities of life in schools that integrates constructivist pedagogies. Examples of such
strategies include cased-based learning (Timken & van der Mars, 2009), autobiographical essay
writing (Betourne & Richards, 2015), and small and large group discussions (Gore, 1990). These
strategies help recruits to more deeply consider their experiences and reflect upon challenges
they have faced in the field. For example, student-authored case studies have been used as a way
to help preservice teachers more deeply consider challenges they face during field experiences,
and how they would navigate similar challenges as beginning teachers (Richards, Hemphill, &
Wilson, 2015). Experiences such as these can be used to help preservice teachers prepare
strategies for navigating custodial teaching environments (Collier, 2011), including how to
overcome challenges related to assessment implementation (Stroot, 2017).
Preservice Teachers’ Assessment Literacy
Recognizing that prior socialization experiences do not always lead preservice teachers to
view assessment as an important part of the physical education profession, PETE programs are
tasked with the challenge of helping preservice teachers integrate assessment practices into their
subjective theories. In an attempt to promote deeper pedagogical action (DinanThompson, 2013),
it is important to help preservice teachers come to see assessment as a vital element of the
teaching-learning process, on par with planning and instruction (Lund & Tannehill, 2010;
Penney et al., 2009). Toward this end, there has been a shift toward assessing for learning, which
informs and provides feedback to students regarding their progress, rather than only assessment
7
of learning, which is an evaluation of student performance (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Although
some progress has been made in using alternative forms of assessment, such as integrating
assessment for learning into teacher educating programs (López-Pastor et al., 2013), assessment
literacy remains an important area to address in PETE (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015).
Evidence suggests that recruits’ experiences through their own physical education as
children influences their views of assessment (Matanin & Collier, 2003), and that these views are
very resistant to change (Richardson & Placier, 2001). Currently, however, little is known about
how preservice teachers learn to use assessment, and how PETE programs influence their beliefs.
Understanding how preservice teachers learn to use assessment is particularly important as
evidence indicates that they struggle when transferring assessment practices and theory discussed
in the classroom to early field experiences, particularly when they have to navigate the
challenges of real-world teaching environments (Collier, 2011). These experiences may be used
to reinforce initial beliefs that assessment is not necessary in physical education, or impractical
given the realities of life in schools (Hay & Penney, 2009; Veal, 1988). In particular, the feeling
that time spent on assessment can be better used for other purposes, such as keeping students
active or practicing skills (Rink, 2013), contributes to a perspective in which assessment is
reduced to an isolated event rather than a central component of the teaching-learning process
(Hay & Penney, 2013).
Previous research has indicated that preservice teachers’ beliefs about student learning
and assessment are influenced in different ways during a field-based learning experience. For
some, the use of authentic assessment resulted in an expanded understanding of assessment,
whereas others resisted or blended in new knowledge into existing belief structures (Goc Karp &
Woods, 2008). In another study, preservice teachers struggled to implement assessment in a
8
Sport Education unit, and instead relied on subjective measures such as effort and participation
(Braga & Liversedge, 2017). Some recognized, however, the need to learn more about
assessment in order to understand how it could benefit their teaching process. Similarly, when
working with students with disabilities, teachers have shown to lack adequate training (Columna,
Davis, Lieberman, & Lytle, 2010; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006) towards assessment practices.
In several studies it has been noted that student teachers lacked experience when
planning, implementing, and integrating assessment and instruction effectively in physical
education (Lund & Veal, 2008). In these situations, the student teachers did not use formative
assessment strategies, had difficulty with assessment implementation, perceived a disconnect
between assessment and instruction, relied heavily on teacher-directed assessments, and were
challenged when writing objectives to establish criteria for learning. Moreover, assessment
misconceptions were reflected in their struggle to hold students accountable for learning due to
lack of fairness, using written tests only for pre- and post-assessment, and taking time away from
active learning (Lund & Veal, 2008; Veal, 1988). In contrast, preservice teachers in England
demonstrated an understanding of assessment practices during their PETE program in which
there was an intentional focus on developing assessment literacy (Lorente-Catalán & Kirk,
2016). The alignment between national policy and PETE program priorities facilitated legitimacy
in the use of assessment for learning for these students. Further, preservice teachers were able to
apply different assessment for learning strategies, but recognized the need to continue learning
how to effectively integrate assessment and instruction into their practice.
Given that the prevailing culture in many school environments limits or inhibits physical
educators’ ability to integrate assessment into the teaching-learning process (Rink, 2013), and the
prevalence of beginning teachers concerns related to student assessment (Graber, 1998; Liston,
9
Whitcomb, & Borko, 2006), preservice teachers need to be provided with appropriate tools and
opportunities to practice assessment so as to increase their assessment literacy. We, therefore,
believe that PETE should be conceptualized as an intervention with the goal of helping
preservice teacher develop assessment literacy (Richards et al., in press). Toward this end, we
have developed an evidence-based conceptual framework for helping preservice teachers
develop assessment literacy. This framework is presented in a four-part progression that can be
used to (a) help preservice teachers question their subjective theories developed through
acculturation, (b) learn effective assessment practices, (c) practice implementing assessment
strategies in real-world environments that mirror the challenges they will face as beginning
teachers, and (d) critically consider the sociocultural implications of assessment practices. This
model is rooted in the occupational socialization theory literature, and reflective of Lund and
Veal’s (2008) recommendations for teaching preservice teachers about assessment practices, and
Hay and Penny’s (2013) assessment literacy framework.
Prioritizing Assessment Literacy during Physical Education Teacher Education
Figure 1.1 provides a graphical representation of the research based conceptual
framework for understanding the development of preservice teachers’ assessment literacy while
accounting for their prior and current socialization experiences. In the following sections, a four-
phase model for developing assessment literacy in PETE is presented. These phases could be
applied to a four year PETE program, or adapted to address the needs of specific programs. For
example, each phase could be covered in one semester in a program that only has students for
two years. These phases address both the technical skills of assessment and seek to help
preservice teachers develop the sociopolitical savvy needed to implement assessment in school
environments that may marginalize physical education. Toward this end, we seek to engage
10
students in essential knowledge of assessment while also acknowledging the active process each
preservice teacher takes in their own learning (Richards et al., 2013). As we introduce each phase
of the model (see Table 1.1), we provide an overview of the literacy focus (Hay & Penney, 2013)
and discuss each learning focus (Lund & Veal, 2008). We complete our discussion of each phase
by providing suggestions to facilitate assessment literacy among preservice teachers at that stage
of development. The suggestions provided should not be considered comprehensive, but rather
examples of activities that can be used to help preservice teachers progressively learn to design
and implement assessment strategies.
Phase One: Assessment Comprehension
Assessment comprehension is defined as “focusing on knowledge and understanding of
assessment expectations and conditions of efficacy” (Hay & Penney, 2013, p. 73). Specifically,
the comprehension phase seeks to promote a general understanding of assessment, including how
it can be used to facilitate student learning, promote authentic learning experiences, and evaluate
physical education programming. Preservice teachers are also encouraged to consider socially
just practices and outcomes related to assessment (Hay & Penney, 2009), and understand
different techniques, including the differences between formative and summative assessment,
and assessment for learning or assessment of learning (Hay & Penney, 2013). Key to
comprehension is ensuring that preservice teachers understand the teaching-learning process,
which exemplifies how to plan so that curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment work together to
promote integrated and effective practices in physical education environments.
The comprehension phase acknowledges that preservice teachers have preconceptions of
assessment, which influences their receptivity to learning (Brown, 2004). Since assessment was
not likely part of acculturation for most preservice teachers, they may be initially resistant to its
the integration into their practice (Richards et al., 2013). A first step in promoting effective
11
assessment practice, therefore, is facilitating conversations among preservice teachers to provide
insight into their beliefs and values of assessment, and the teaching-learning process in physical
education more generally. These conversations and experiences can provoke preservice teachers
to think more critically about their own views of assessment, which can lead to the reformulation
of their subjective theories. Toward this end, constructivist-oriented teaching strategies, such as
case-based learning, writing autobiographical essays, and problem-based learning can be
particularly effective in helping preservice teachers reflect upon and interrogate their initial
belief structures (Richards et al., 2013). In particular, case studies (Stroot, 2017) present
situational experiences to which students can respond by drawing from their own experiences
with and knowledge of assessment.
Further, teacher educators cannot assume that preservice teachers will know how, when,
and what to assess (Lund & Veal, 2008). Preservice teachers tend to struggle to develop
assessment for student learning in particular, and often view assessment something that is done
after instruction is complete in both physical education (Lund & Kirk, 2010) and adapted
physical education contexts (Columna et al., 2010). Therefore, the focus of this phase is on
ensuring that preservice teachers understand how to identify the most important elements of
instruction and then develop assessment plans. This includes learning to write objectives and
select criteria to assess aligned with the objective (Lund & Veal, 2008). Another important
consideration in this phase is to promote an understanding of the teaching-learning process
where assessment is understood as a necessary component. By placing emphasis on the
importance of assessment toward the beginning of the PETE program, it can be positioned as an
integral part of the teaching learning exchange and as necessary for effective teaching.
12
Phase Two: Assessment Comprehension and Application
In the second phase, we recommend a continued focus on comprehension while also
moving preservice teachers toward the application of assessment practices. Application, defined
as, “focusing on the conduct of assessment in terms of either teacher implementation or student
engagement,” acknowledges the need for preservice teacher to practice using assessment tasks in
different environments while providing evidence of student learning (Hay & Penney, 2013, p.
73). Broadly, the focus of the second phase is on developing an expanded repertoire of
assessment tools to measuring learning across domains (i.e., affect, cognitive, psychomotor), and
putting those tools into practice so as to include all students. The focus of application should be
on considering the alignment of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in practical experiences.
Preservice teachers should, therefore, use data gathered through field experiences to understand
the influence of instruction on student learning, and consider the implications of assessment for
future teaching.
A critical component of this phase is for preservice students to be provided experiences in
which they have opportunities to practice using assessment in both the role of a learner and as a
teacher (Lund & Veal, 2008). As preservice teachers begin to feel comfortable with the teaching-
learning process, they should begin to recognize that assessment practices can be authentic and
alternative, which helps them move beyond the sole implementation of traditional, teacher-
driven assessments and fitness evaluations. Importantly, preservice teachers should practice
creating specific assessments aligned with their lesson planning (Lund & Veal, 2008). This can
be done by helping preservice teachers recognize the connection between their lesson objectives,
planned activities, and assessment strategies. Preservice teachers should then have an
opportunity to implement lessons learned about the design of assessments into their field
13
experiences. Following the completion of an implementation, they should reflect upon the
process of designing and conducting an assessment, along with the implications for student
learning and future instruction. All reflections and discussion of learning are supported with a
formal documentation (Strike & Posner, 1992).
Through the reflection process, particularly during group debriefing discussions (Gore,
1990), preservice teachers should begin to consider the realities of using assessment in physical
education environments. They should, for example, think about the challenges and barriers to
implementing assessment, such as large classes, limited time, the need for constant supervision,
and consider strategies for overcoming these challenges. By considering these challenges in a
group setting, students can share experiences and provide examples of successful implementation
strategies in light of barriers they face. Aligned with a constructivist approach to teacher
education, preservice teachers participate in the process of knowledge generation by contributing
lessons learned through firsthand experience (Richards et al., 2013). Teacher education faculty
should act as facilitators in their process by encouraging students’ reflection and sharing during
group sessions.
Phase Three: Assessment Application and Interpretation
Once preservice teachers have gained an understanding of the relationship between
assessment, curriculum, and pedagogy, and are then able to begin applying efficacious
assessment in the classroom (Hay & Penney, 2013), they will then move towards the third phase
of the assessment literacy process. This includes a continued focus on application while also
moving students toward interpretation. When moving into interpretation, students are “focusing
on making sense of and acting on the information that is collected through assessment practices,
including traversing and negotiating the social relations of assessment,” while also developing a
14
plan to act upon the assessment information they have gathered while working in schools (Hay &
Penney, 2013, p. 73). A major component of this phase is holding the preservice teacher
accountable for the assessment comprehension they developed in the first two phases, as well as
their ability to make meaningful assessment interpretations from two specific areas: (1)
interpretation of information related to instructional decision, and (2) interpretation of student
data against a set standard or criteria (Hay & Penney, 2013).
Assessment interpretation related to instructional decisions is not a new topic for most
PETE programs, but it is an area with which many novice teachers struggle (Lund & Veal,
2008). As Lund and Veal (2008) noted, preservice teachers “usually can use assessment results
to calculate student grades, but they also need to know that formative assessments provide
valuable information about whether pupils have learned and this information is useful for
planning future lessons” (p. 509). This is an imperative time for cooperating teachers to help
guide preservice teachers on the understanding and application of assessment that is both for and
of learning. The second component of assessment interpretation is related to determining levels
of student achievement or attainment by comparing data that has been gathered against specific
standards or criteria (Hay & Penney, 2013). What makes this task challenging for early career
teachers is that standards and assessment criteria vary greatly depending on the program goals
(Wyatt-Smith, Klenowski, & Gunn, 2010). This variance can be particularly difficult while
trying to identify and meet the learning outcomes of both models-based practice and skill content
adding complexity to the process of matching learning and assessment to instructional goals
(Lund & Veal, 2008).
During this third phase, preservice teachers should have multiple and varied practical
experiences using assessment information, both formal and informal, to help adapt or enhance
15
the learning tasks for a particular individual, group, or class. Although this might be more
difficult to do during segmented teaching lessons in field experiences, preservice teachers need
to think past an individual lesson and considered how they might extend the lesson the following
day based on assessment data. Thus, it is imperative for preservice teachers to have a clear
understanding of the performance criteria of a given program. Whether it is a grading scheme,
rubric criteria, or scores on criterion a referenced fitness test, preservice teachers need to not only
understand the performance criteria of the assessment, but need practice interpreting data to draw
meaning from student performance in applied settings. These opportunities will help them begin
to understand how assessment data can be used to guide future programming decisions and also
(Lund & Kirk, 2010). Teachers could, for example, utilize assessments and present that data to
school administrators to document program effectiveness and student learning.
Phase Four: Assessment Interpretation and Critical Engagement with Assessment
The fourth phase of assessment literacy connects the phases of assessment interpretation
while critically engaging with assessment. Critical engagement “promotes consideration of the
contribution of assessment to the teacher’s power in the field and its impact on the social
dynamics of the classroom field” (Hay & Penney, 2013, p. 77). Preservice teachers in this phase
should start to see the impact their assessment practices have on their students’ learning and
development, begin to understand the power dynamic that is inherent between the assessor and
assessed, and consider the impact or consequences assessment has on all parties involved in the
instructional exchange (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015).
One way critical engagement takes place in this phase is when preservice teachers are
encouraged to understand the limitations of the interpretations they make from assessment data.
Preservice teachers need to learn how to be cautious with how they treat assessment data,
16
understanding that no form of assessment is perfect and that all carry inherent limitations and
flaws that need to be acknowledged (Hay & Penney, 2013). Toward this end, assessment-literate
teachers are able to recognize that assessment is a flexible process that is laden with issues
related to validity, reliability, and objectivity that all influence what types of conclusions can be
drawn about student learning. Preservice teachers should use their understanding of assessment
limitations in order to take an intentional approach to how they manage assessment data and
report student results (Lund & Veal, 2008). Acknowledging power dynamics inherent in the
assessment process, preservice teachers should remember that assessment data is privileged and
that student-level data should not be shared or displayed beyond the individual students and their
families (Hay & Penney, 2013).
In field based settings, preservice teachers will have to navigate the technical capacities
such as managing and conducting assessment but also understanding the sociocultural influences
and consequences of assessment (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). Toward this end, they need
to determine rules, routines, and expectations for assessment practices in real settings just as they
would with any other transition and use of equipment. Additionally, preservice teachers should
not underestimate the realities of the school and the social dynamics of assessment between the
teacher and the student. It is possible, for example, receiving a negative assessment or poor grade
in physical education without explanation or justification of the grade would have implications
for future learning (Hay & Penney, 2013). Preservice teachers should remember that many
children may not be used to assessment in physical education, and should be intentional about
how results are shared and information and interpretations are communicated with students.
They should specifically work toward establishing a culture which utilizes more authentic forms
and assessment for learning so that assessment becomes integrated into the teaching-learning
17
process and is used in a way that provides students with information about their learning that can
be used to make further improvements. One way to do this might be for preservice teachers to
teach students how to use assessment by making them aware of criteria instead of expecting
them to understand. Moreover, with a critical perspective toward assessment, it is imperative that
preservice teachers learn to and are held accountable for being reflective practitioners as they
integrate assessment continuously while considering both the technical and social practices.
Conclusions and Final Thoughts
The purpose of this manuscript was to develop an evidence-based conceptual framework
for progressively introducing preservice physical education teachers to assessment practices that
are grounded in the occupational socialization theory literature. The framework is also reflective
of Lund and Veal’s (2008) recommendations for teaching preservice teachers about assessment
practices, and Hay and Penny’s (2013) assessment literacy framework. Along with others in the
field of physical education (Braga & Liversedge, 2017; Goc Karp & Woods, 2008; Lorente-
Catalán & Kirk, 2016; Lund & Veal, 2008), we argue that, given the challenges associated with
employing quality assessment practices in physical education, an increased emphasis on
developing intentional assessment practices among preservice teachers is warranted.
Recognizing barriers associated with assessment, physical education teacher education programs
are faced with helping recruits question initial subjective theories that often deemphasize
assessment and provide opportunities to utilize, reflect upon, and critique their own assessment
practices. This process works toward increasing assessment literacy among preservice teachers
while also adopting lessons learned through occupational socialization theory (Richards &
Gaudreault, 2017; Templin & Schempp, 1989) related to how teachers are recruited into the
physical education profession and prepared for life in schools.
18
The assessment literacy framework presented by Hay and Penney (2013) seeks to understand
both technical and sociocultural complexities associated with developing and implementing
meaningful assessment practices. The four phases of assessment literacy – comprehension,
application, interpretation, and critical engagement – highlight the necessity to understand “how
to design quality assessment tasks, scrutinizing assessment data and asking questions about what
the assessment tells students” (Stiggins, 1991, p. 535). Previous research has indicated that
preservice teachers often view assessment as an afterthought (Hay, Tinning, & Engstrom, 2015)
and many struggle to apply it in their teaching practice (Columna et al., 2010; Lund & Veal,
2008). We suggest that preservice teachers need to practice assessment in different contextual
environments so as to explore both technical and sociocultural complexities and be met with
discussions surrounding their values and beliefs as an intentional component of their PETE
programming.
Research has indicated that if shifts are to be made, preservice teachers need the opportunity
to critically grapple with their beliefs through new experiences that provoke them to think in new
and different ways (Goc Karp & Woods, 2008; Lorente-Catalán & Kirk, 2016; Lund & Veal,
2008). Additionally, assessment needs to be conceptually intertwined in alignment with
curriculum and pedagogy, which encourages the use of more authentic assessment in line with
assessment for learning. However, there is a need to understand how preservice teachers view
assessment as a part of the teaching-learning process. This work should also be extended to
understand how preservice teachers are able to transfer assessment practices learned through
PETE programs into their work with children in schools (Lorente-Catalán & Kirk, 2016).
Importantly, learning to design and implement assessment practices should include a focus on
assessing children with a variety of learning needs, including those with disabilities. While our
19
arguments in the current manuscript focused on socialization and assessment literacy in a general
sense, we believe that this work could and should be extended to include preservice teachers’
perspectives on and ability to assess children with disabilities through future works. This seems
particularly important given the focus in adapted physical education on using assessment not
only to monitor learning gains, but also to determine placement in the least restrictive
environment (Hodge, Lieberman, & Murata, 2012), which is enforced through federal legislation
such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004).
While PETE programs have a responsibility to prepare preservice teachers with the
knowledge and skills required to effectively integrate assessment into their practice, a teacher’s
education does not end with the culmination of PETE (Knight, 2002). If physical educators hope
to transfer quality assessment practices into schools, we need to consider how school structures
and priorities facilitate or inhibit assessment practices (Brown & Evans, 2004). School
administrators and professional development providers have a responsibility to help both
beginning and veteran teachers develop assessment practices that include assessment for learning
and position assessment as an integral component of the teaching-learning process (Hay &
Penney, 2009). This work should acknowledge the barriers that physical educators face when
using assessment in schools (Richards et al., 2013), and incorporate best-practices for continuing
professional development, such as providing teachers a voice in the conceptualization of their
learning experiences, embracing the social nature of learning through teacher learning
communities, and providing ongoing support through teachers’ attempts to implement what they
have learned (Armour & Yelling, 2007; Fullan, 2007; Guskey, 2002). University faculty
members could also develop partnerships with local schools to continuing teacher learning
through formal teacher induction programming. Such approaches may ease the transition into
20
teaching and protect against the washing out of lessons learned in PETE (Blankenship &
Coleman, 2009).
Building from the conceptual framework advocated in this manuscript, as well as the
work of others (Hay & Penney, 2013; Lund & Veal, 2008), further research should seek to better
understand the ways in which teacher socialization experiences frame receptivity to and ability to
implement effective assessment practices. This work should examine the influence of pretraining
socialization in physical education programs that may not utilize effective assessment practices,
PETE programs in overcoming recruits’ initial subjective theories and helping them develop
skills and beliefs related to assessment, and school environments that may marginalize physical
education and formally or informally inhibit the implementation of effective practices. In
particular, this work should highlight the efforts of teachers who have been able to successfully
overcome the constraints of their environments in order to implement highly effective
assessment practices that are acknowledged and embraced by school administrators. This kind of
research will help the physical education profession develop a better understanding of the
contextual factors that support or inhibit assessment implementation, which could eventually
help to promote the implementation of assessment strategies that seek to build upon and support
student learning in physical education.
21
References
Armour, K., & Yelling, M. (2007). Effective professional development for physical education
teachers: The role of informal, collaborative learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 26(2), 177-200.
Betourne, J., & Richards, K. A. R. (2015). Using autobiographical essays to encourage student
reflection on socialization experiences. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, 86(2), 34-40.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Blankenship, B. T., & Coleman, M. M. (2009). An examination of "wash out" and workplace
conditions of beginning physical education teachers. Physical Educator, 66(2), 97-111.
Braga, L., & Liversedge, P. (2017). Challenges and facilitators to the implementation of a sport
education season: The voices of teacher candidates. Physical Educator, 74(1), 19-40.
Brown, D., & Evans, J. (2004). Reproducing gender? Intergenerational links and the male PE
teacher as a cultural conduit in teaching physical education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 23(1), 48-70.
Brown, G. T. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and
professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
11(3), 301-318.
Christensen, R., & Barney, D. C. (2011). Cooperating teachers’ expectations for student teachers
during the student teaching experience in physical education. Asian Journal of Physical
Education and Recreation, 17(2), 6-15.
Collier, D. (2011). Increasing the value of physical education: The role of assessment. The
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(7), 38.
Columna, L., Davis, T., Lieberman, L., & Lytle, R. (2010). Determining the most appropriate
physical education placement for students with disabilities. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(7), 30-37.
Curtner-Smith, M., Hastie, P., & Kinchin, G. D. (2008). Influence of occupational socialization
on beginning teachers' interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education
and Society, 13, 97-117.
22
DinanThompson, M. (2013). Claiming “educative outcomes” in HPE: The potential for
“pedagogical action.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education,
4(2), 127-142.
DinanThompson, M., & Penney, D. (2015). Assessment literacy in primary physical education.
European Physical Education Review, 21(4), 485-503. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15584087
Ennis, C. (Ed.). (2017). Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Flory, S. B. (2016). Professional socialization experiences of early career urban physical
educators. European Physical Education Review, 22(4), 430-449.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4 ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Goc Karp, G., & Woods, M. L. (2008). Preservice teachers' perceptions about assessment and its
implementation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(3), 327-346.
Gore, J. (1990). Pedagogy as text in physical education teacher education: Beyond the preferred
reading. In D. Kirk & R. Tinning (Eds.), Physical education, curriculum and culture:
Critical issues in the contemporary crisis (pp. 101-138). London, UK: Falmer Press.
Graber, K. C. (1998). Implementing pedagogical principles in the absence of operational
knowledge: A longitudinal case study examining the influence of teacher education on
the instructional behaviors of a high school teacher. The High School Journal, 81(3), 140-
153.
Grotjahn, R. (1991). The research programme subjective theories: A new approach in second
language research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 187-214.
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391.
Hay, P. (2006). Assessment for learning in physical education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2009). Proposing conditions for assessment efficacy in physical
education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 389-405.
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2013). Assessment in physical education: A sociocultural perspective.
New York: Routledge.
Hay, P., Tinning, R., & Engstrom, C. (2015). Assessment as pedagogy: A consideration of
pedagogical work and the preparation of kinesiology professionals. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy, 20(1), 31-44.
23
Hodge, S. R., Lieberman, L. J., & Murata, N. M. (2012). Essentials of teaching adapted physical
education. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004).
Kirk, D., Macdonald, D., & O'Sullivan, M. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of physical education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development: Learning as practice.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3), 229-241.
Lawson, H. A. (1983). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The
subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1). Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 2(3), 3-16.
Lawson, H. A. (1986). Occupational socialization and the design of teacher education programs.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5(2), 107-116.
Liston, D., Whitcomb, J., & Borko, H. (2006). Too little or too much: Teacher preparation and
the first years of teaching: Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.
López-Pastor, V. M., Kirk, D., Lorente-Catalán, E., MacPhail, A., & Macdonald, D. (2013).
Alternative assessment in physical education: A review of international literature. Sport,
Education and Society, 18(1), 57-76.
Lorente-Catalán, E., & Kirk, D. (2016). Student teachers’ understanding and application of
assessment for learning during a physical education teacher education course. European
Physical Education Review, 22(1), 65-81. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15590352
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lund, J., & Tannehill, D. (2010). Standards-based physical education curriculum development.
Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Lund, J. L., & Kirk, M. F. (2010). Performance-based assessment for middle and high school
physical education (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lund, J. L., & Veal, M. L. (2008). Chapter 4: Measuring pupil learning—how do student
teachers assess within instructional models? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
27(4), 487-511.
Lux, K., & McCullick, B. A. (2011). How one exceptional teacher navigated her working
environment as the teacher of a marginal subject. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 30(4), 358-374.
Matanin, M., & Collier, C. (2003). Longitudinal analysis of preservice teachers’ beliefs about
teaching physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(2), 153-168.
24
McKenzie, T., & Lounsbery, M. A. F. (2014). Physical education teacher effectiveness in a
public health context. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 419-430.
Meegan, S., & MacPhail, A. (2006). Irish physical educators’ attitude toward teaching students
with special educational needs. European Physical Education Review, 12(1), 75-97.
O’Sullivan, M. (1989). Failing gym is like failing lunch or recess: Two beginning teachers’
struggle for legitimacy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8(3), 227-242.
Penney, D., Brooker, R., Hay, P., & Gillespie, L. (2009). Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment:
Three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education. Sport
Education and Society, 14(4), 421-442. doi: 10.1080/13573320903217125
Richards, K. A. R., & Gaudreault, K. L. (Eds.). (2017). Teacher socialization in physical
education: New perspectives. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Richards, K. A. R., Gaudreault, K. L., & Templin, T. J. (2014). Understanding the realities of
teaching: A seminar series focused on induction. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 85(9), 28-35.
Richards, K. A. R., Hemphill, M. A., & Wilson, W. J. (2015). Student-authored case studies as a
reflective component of teacher education. The Physical Educator, 72(1), 117-138.
Richards, K. A. R., Housner, L., & Templin, T. J. (in press). Addressing physical education
teacher socialization through standards-based reform of physical education teacher
education. Quest.
Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J., & Gaudreault, K. L. (2013). Understanding the realities of
school life: Recommendations for the preparation of physical education teachers. Quest,
65(4), 442-457.
Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J., & Graber, K. (2014). The socialization of teachers in physical
education: Review and recommendations for future works. Kinesiology Review, 3(2),
113-134.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (4 ed., pp. 905-947). Washington DC, USA: American Educational
Research Association.
Rink, J., & Hall, T. J. (2008). Research on effective teaching in elementary physical education.
Elementary School Journal, 108(3), 207-218.
Rink, J. E. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 407-418.
Schempp, P. G., & Graber, K. (1992). Teacher socialization from a dialectical perspective:
Pretraining through induction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11(4), 329-
348.
25
Sinelnikov, O. A., & Hastie, P. (2017). The learning of pedagogical models in physical
education: The socialization perspective. In K. A. R. Richards & K. L. Gaudreault
(Eds.), Teacher socialization in physical education: New perspectives. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Starck, J. R. (2017). Using assessment for learning in sport education. Strategies, 30(4), 51-53.
Stiggins, R. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(March), 534–539.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl
& R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational
Theory and Practice (pp. 147 - 176). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Stroot, S. A. (2017). Case studies in physical education: Real world preparation for teaching.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Templin, T. J., & Schempp, P. G. (Eds.). (1989). Socialization into physical education: Learning
to teach. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.
Timken, G., & van der Mars, H. (2009). The effect of case methods on preservice physical
education teachers' value orientations. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(2),
169-187.
Veal, M. L. (1988). Pupil assessment perceptions and practices of secondary teachers. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 7(4), 327-342.
Wright, P. M., & Burton, S. (2008). Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based
physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(2), 138-154.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgement
practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice, 17(1), 59–75.
Young, A., & MacPhail, A. (2015). “Standing in the periphery:” Cooperating teachers’
perspectives and responses to the role of supervision. European Physical Education
review, 21(2), 222-237.
26
Table 1.1
Four-phase conceptual framework for helping preservice teachers develop assessment literacy during teacher education
Focus
(modified from Lund and
Veal, 2008)
Overviewing the teaching/learning
process
Learning tools to measure student
learning
Implementing assessment and
working data in EFE
Designing and implementing
assessment plans and critiquing results
Literacy Focus (Hay & Penney, 2013)
Comprehension Comprehension/
Application Application/ Interpretation
Interpretation/Critical
Suggestions for Building
Assessment Literacy
Create conversations related to perceived
assessment practices in physical
education (e.g. assessment of and for learning)
Employ assessment course
(measurement & evaluation for
physical education) in which students learn strategies and tools to use
assessment
Intentionally select components of
pedagogical models to guide
assessment in EFE (Braga & Liversedge, 2017)
Intentionally build assessment into the
curriculum planning as a continuous
process
Show and discuss examples of assessment
utilized successfully in physical education with s specific emphasis on alignment
with three learning domains
Provide examples of, and in class
practice with assessment options for measuring learning in all three
domains
Hold on campus debriefing sessions
that focus on managing assessment in the schools
Reflect on implications and barriers to
using assessment in the schools through written assignments and group
discussions
Case studies of teachers using assessment
in PE (see Stroot, 2014)
Identify critical assessment
components of activity, pedagogical
model, or sport preservice teachers will
teach (Lund & Veal, 2008)
Hold preservice teachers accountable
for using both assessment of learning
and assessment for learning in EFE
Hold students accountable for collecting
raw data of student learning during
student teaching
Discuss intentional alignment of the teaching/learning process to promote
curriculum, pedagogy and instruction to
work together (Penney, Brooker, Hay & Gillespie, 2009)
Practice creating lessons where a record form must be designed, time
within the lesson must be allotted, and
data must be collected to demonstrate learner performance (Lund and Veal,
2008)
Discuss assessment with cooperating teachers to understand the realities of
implementing assessment and
accountability in schools
Have critical aspect of assessment literacy of K-12 students & navigating
sociopolitical environment of
administration and other teachers during seminars
To promote legitimacy of assessment practices, discuss alignment between
SHAPE America and PETE pedagogy
practices (Lorente-Catalan & Kirk, 2016)
Learn to write performance-based objectives that are linked with
assessment (Lund & Veal, 2008)
Employ assessment practices in field work in connection with methods
courses to make connections between
concepts and principles of assessment
in real world settings (Ingersoll,
Jerkins, & Lux, 2014)
Practice interpreting assessment results and determine their significance to the
educational process (Lund and Veal,
2008) by being able to interpret K-12
student data, reflect on the meaning
drawn from said data, and use that
information to make informed planning decisions for future instruction
Discuss how to identify what they need to assess to document pupil learning (Lund
& Veal, 2008)
Round table discussions of barriers to assessment in physical education &
have students come up with own
solutions
Have an open discuss with students about how assessment practices and
data can be used as an advocacy tool
for the promotion of quality physical education programming
Integrate assessment results into the teacher reflection and continuous
program improvement processes
Writing autobiographies or teaching metaphors, and discussing subjective
theories (Betourne & Richards, 2015)
Ensure preservice teacher reflections of K-12 student learning supported
with written evidence (Strike &
Posner, 1992)
27
Figure 1.1 A research-based conceptual framework for helping pre-service teachers develop
assessment literacy founded in occupational socialization theory.
28
CHAPTER 2
THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIALIZATION FACTORS ON PHYSICAL EDUCATORS’
CONCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT AND PERCEIVED QUALITY OF ASSESSMENT
Abstract
Although scholars argue that assessment is an integral component of the teaching-
learning exchange in physical education, it is still far from being regular, integral, widespread,
and productive (López-Pastor, Kirk, Lorente-Catalán, MacPhail, & Macdonald, 2013). Given
that many physical education recruits do not experience assessment during their formative
education (Stern & Keislar, 1977), many develop belief systems that do not value assessment
(Starck, Richards, & O’Neil, 2018). Understanding the lack of assessment in physical education,
therefore, requires an examination of both workplace factors and individual beliefs. Little is
known, however, about how these environments influence teachers’ assessment literacy.
However, it is likely that class size, perceptions of organizational support and marginalization
influence teachers’ assessment practices. Using occupational socialization theory (Richards &
Gaudreault, 2017), this study sought to understand the influence of workplace factors and
teachers’ conceptions of assessment on the extent to which they report integrating quality
assessment into their practice. Participants included 90 inservice physical education teachers (47
males, 43 females) from the state of Alabama who had been teaching for an average of 15.6
years and were teaching at primary (n = 42; 47%) and secondary levels (n = 44; 49%) with few
teaching across schools (n = 4; 4%). Participants completed an online survey beginning with a
demographic questionnaire. Measures of workplace factors included the Survey of Perceived
29
Organizational Support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), the
Marginalization subscale of the Physical Education Marginalization and Isolation Survey
(Gaudreault, Richards, & Woods, 2016). The next section included Teachers' Conceptions of
Assessment III (Brown, 2006), including (a) assessment makes schools accountable, (b)
assessment makes students accountable, (c) assessment improves education, and (d) assessment
is irrelevant. The survey concluded with the Quality of Assessment subscale from the Physical
Education Assessment Questionnaire (Borghouts, Slingerland, & Haerens, 2017). Using IBM
SPSS 23.0, teachers’ perceived quality of assessment was regressed on workplace factors
(perceived organizational support, marginalization, and class size) and conceptions of assessment
using Ordinary Least Squares regression. The first regression model (adjusted R2 = .08) did not
include any significant predictors, so a second was run to examine if workplace factors and
conceptions of assessment could be used to predict the belief that assessment improves
education. In the second model (adjusted R2 = .66) the following variables were significant:
assessment makes schools accountable (β = .45, p < .001), assessment makes students
accountable (β = .19, p = .007), assessment is irrelevant (β = -.16, p = .047), marginalization (β =
.14, p = .017), and perceived organizational support (β = .19, p = .001). The importance of this
study lies in how schools prioritize teacher effectiveness in conjunction with teachers’
assessment literacy given their reported conceptions of assessment for accountability and
irrelevance when using assessment for improvement (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). Due to
marginalization and perceived organizational support influences on utilizing assessment for
improvement, there is a call to educate administration and policy makers on the contextual
differences of physical education and what quality physical education teaching looks like (Rink,
2014).
30
Keywords: organizational socialization, assessment literacy, physical education, inservice
teachers
Introduction
Although scholars have argued that assessment is an integral component of the teaching-
learning exchange (Mercier & Doolittle, 2013), and one of the four essential components of
physical education (Society of Health and Physical Educators America, 2009), assessment in
physical education is still “far from being regular, integral, widespread, and educationally
productive” (López-Pastor, Kirk, Lorente-Catalán, MacPhail, & Macdonald, 2013, p. 71).
Assessment continues to be a fraught and troublesome area of physical education teacher’s
practice (López-Pastor et al., 2013), with evidence suggesting that they lack assessment literacy
and the belief that assessment is an integral component of the teaching-learning exchange
(DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). Assessment literacy has been conceptualized as the
development of knowledge and ability to utilize assessment in practice, and includes both the
technical side of implementing assessments as well as a sociocultural dimension related to using
assessment in a way that promotes student equity (Hay & Penney, 2013).
Understanding the lack of assessment in physical education requires an examination of
both workplace factors and individual beliefs related to the role of assessment in the teaching-
learning process (Capel, 2016; Lawson, 1983a). Theories of workplace socialization examine
how individuals acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to become effective
members of specific profession (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011). Given that many physical education
recruits do not experience assessment during their own formative education (Stern & Keislar,
1977), many develop belief systems that do not value the role of assessment in their practice
(Starck, Richards, & O’Neil, 2018). Further, while policies and accountability systems have been
developed to guide teachers’ practice in other subjects, many physical educators do not and are
31
not required to formally measure program outcomes at any level (Rink, 2013). This lack of
accountability relates to the social construction of physical education as a marginalized subject
and creates barriers to the integration of high quality assessment practices (Rink, 2013) with little
value placed on teacher effectiveness and outcomes (Norris, van der Mars, Kulinna, Amrein-
Beardsley, Kwon, & Hodges, 2017).
Schools present complex, sociopolitical environments that influence how teachers make
decisions and where efforts are placed in their teaching (Day & Gu, 2010). Little is known,
however, about how these environments influence teachers’ assessment literacy. As conceptions
of teaching, learning, and curricula strongly influence how teachers teach and what students
learn (Brown, 2004), additional research is needed on whether teachers’ workplace environments
influence their conceptions of assessment. Further, given inservice teachers underdeveloped
assessment literacy (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015) and minimal accountability placed on
quality assessment practices in physical education in schools (Rink, 2013), there is also a need to
examine the extent to which teachers perceive their assessment to be in line with best practices.
Through the lens of occupational socialization theory (Richards, Templin, & Graber, 2014;
Templin & Schempp, 1989), in this study we will seek to understand the influence of workplace
factors and teachers’ conceptions of assessment on the extent to which they report integrating
quality assessment into their practice.
Conceptions and Practices of Assessment
Scholars have defined conceptions as including more than just beliefs, but rather a
“general mental structure, encompassing beliefs, meanings, conceptions, proposition, rules,
mental images, preferences and the like” (Thompson, 1992, p. 130). Given contextual
differences across school sites, teachers’ conceptions of assessments are viewed, experienced,
32
and interpreted differently within each school environment (Pratt, 1992). Moreover, as these
conceptions are interconnected with past and current socialization experiences, teachers’
conceptions of assessment may not align with prevailing perspectives within their school. This
can lead to teachers prioritizing assessment for different purposes than for what is supported
within their school. Recently, Hay and Penney (2013) drew attention to teachers assessment
literacy as a means to promote quality assessment as it endorses an understanding of how to
design quality assessment tasks, scrutinize assessment data, and ask questions about what
assessment tells students. Often assessment standards, which are aimed to connect teaching and
learning, are also tied to regulation and administration (Brown, 2004). It is no wonder than why
many teachers’ conceptions of assessment may be influenced by workplace environments when
considering top down policy mandates that dictate what data be collected and how it be used.
The connection policy mandates with assessment is important because it is possible that
high stakes assessment will alter teachers’ conceptions of assessment towards a practice that is
not authentic and does not produce equitable outcomes for students (DinanThompson & Penney,
2015). Using assessment that is authentic and relevant to the learner (Hay & Penney, 2013) can
promote a mechanism of accountability to improve programs, contribute to student learning, and
improve teachers’ practices (MacPhail & Halbert, 2010). Many physical educators have
indicated that they struggle to implement more authentic forms of assessment in their practice,
however, because of factors including (a) lack of time, (b) lack of administrative accountability,
(c) large classes, (d) lack of professional preparation, (e) and a belief that assessment is not
necessary (James, Griffin, & Dodds, 2009; Rink, 2014). These barriers, which include both
organization workplace factors and conceptions of assessment, suggest there is a gap in both
policy and practice towards increasing assessment literacy. We, therefore, argue that teachers’
33
assessment conceptions are influenced by socialization experiences that occur across their lives
and careers and these influences can be understood through the lens of occupational socialization
theory (Starck et al., 2018).
Occupational Socialization Theory
Occupational socialization theory (Richards & Gaudreault, 2017; Templin & Schempp,
1989) takes a dialectical perspective on socialization (Schempp & Graber, 1992) into and
through the physical education profession that views individuals as active participants in their
own socialization. This is in contrast to functionalist perspective, which views individuals as
being passively socialized into work roles and without the agency to resist those who seek to
socialize them (Templin & Richards, 2014). Socialization occurs as the individual interacts with
socializing agents over time and is usually discussed across a continuum that includes
acculturation, professional socialization, and organizational socialization (Richards et al., 2014).
Acculturation relates to experiences that attract recruits into the field of physical
education and contribute to their decision to enter a teacher education program (Lawson, 1983b).
Prior to entering physical education teacher education (PETE), recruits develop subjective
theories (Grotjahn, 1991) based on their apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) as children
in school environments that frame their understanding of what it means to be a physical educator
(Templin & Schempp, 1989). Recruits’ subjective theories are often constructed with minimal
insight into the technical and sociopolitical cultures of teaching (Richards, Templin, &
Gaudreault, 2013) and tend to emphasize team sport content taught through traditional
pedagogical approaches. Moreover, many recruits hold conceptions of assessment which are
inconsistent with effective assessment practices due to limited exposure to quality assessment in
physical education during their formative education (Lund & Veal, 2008; Starck et al., 2018).
34
Professional socialization describes how recruits learn to assume the role of a physical
education teacher through a PETE program (Lawson, 1986). Given that socialization is a
dialectical process, recruits may filter out information provided by the PETE program if it does
not align with their subjective theories developed during acculturation (Richards et al., 2014;
Schempp & Graber, 1992) such as resistance to assessment practices (Lund & Veal, 2008; Starck
et al., 2018). Preservice teachers’ learning about assessment in PETE is, therefore, dependent on
their willingness to integrate it into their existing subjective theories of teaching (Lund & Veal,
2008). Research has indicated that when PETE faculty develop field-based teacher education
programs, have a shared technical culture (Curtner-Smith, Hastie, & Kinchin, 2008; Lortie,
1975), and acknowledge recruits’ acculturation, recruits may be more likely to question and
reformulate their subjective theories (Richards et al., 2013). With hopes of challenging recruits
assumptions about assessments role in physical education, PETE programs are tasked with
providing opportunities to implement assessment in authentic contexts and explore the realities
of the school environment.
When new teachers enter the workplace, they begin organizational socialization, which
is an ongoing process through which they are formally and informally taught what it means to
teach physical education within a particular school (Lynn & Woods, 2010; Richards, Templin,
Levesque-Bristol, & Blankenship, 2014). While some teachers begin their careers working in
supportive environments that embrace the innovative perspectives, others encounter issues and
challenges related to the school environment and culture (Curtner-Smith et al., 2008; Lawson,
1983a). Many schools continue to operate as custodial bureaucracies that lean toward
preservation of the status quo and prioritize experience over innovative practices (Curtner-Smith,
2009). As a result, beginning teachers tend to lack authority and experience compared to
35
experienced colleagues and may feel pressure toward conformity (Ensign & Woods, 2017;
Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1983) away from innovative practices. Often beginning teachers feel
they lack formal training necessary to navigate these environments and may internally adjust
their teaching to meet the organizational expectations of their schools (Blankenship & Coleman,
2009; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). This can result in the washing out of practices emphasized
in PETE, including the use of effective assessment (Starck et al., 2018).
As assessment decision making is largely influenced by the tension between teachers’
internal beliefs and external influences imposed them within school environments and the larger
educational system (Black & Wiliam, 1998), recognizing factors that influence assessment
within the teaching-learning process is necessary. Previous research has identified several factors
within the school organizational culture that serve to influence teachers working experiences and
socialization, and may contribute to the washout of practices (Blankenship & Coleman, 2009;
Lawson, 1989). In particular, evidence indicates that factors such as marginalization, perceived
organizational support, and class size, are crucial in understanding teachers’ experiences and
school environments will likely have implications for assessment practices.
Subjects that are not viewed as central to the mission are socially constructed as marginal
or peripheral (Armour & Jones, 1998; Sparkes, Templin, & Schempp, 1993). Physical education
is often socially constructed as a marginalized subject, and physical educators are often rewarded
for managing student behavior rather than their influence on student learning (O’Sullivan, 1989).
Consequentially, this marginal status often leads to teachers believing their work is less
impactful and important than others (Eldar, Nabel, Schechter, Talmor, & Mazin, 2003).
Conversely, teachers have shown the ability to resist marginalization through advocacy and by
developing relationships with colleagues and administrators in their schools (Gaudreault,
36
Richards, & Woods, 2017; Lux & McCullick, 2011). Toward this end, teachers who feel less
marginalized are likely to be more committed to teaching and student learning (Weiss, 1999).
This can include the drive to facilitate more effective programs which include the use of state of
the art curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Templin & Richards, 2014).
Related to feeling less marginalized, perceived organizational support has been discussed
as the beliefs individuals hold about how they feel as if they are supported and valued by the
larger culture operating within the workplace (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, &
Rhoades, 2001). Feeling higher levels of organizational support has been found to facilitate
teachers’ commitment to the school as an organization (Eisenberger et al., 2001) and also
improve their work performance (Bogler & Nir, 2012). In contrast, factors that limit
organizational support factors, such as large classes, limited instructional time, insufficient
equipment, and lack of collegial and administrative support hinder can hinder teachers’ ability to
utilize sounds practices, such as using assessment to monitor student learning (Veal, 1990).
Finally, scholars have recognized large class sizes in physical education as a challenge
may teachers face throughout their careers (Lynn & Woods, 2010; Veal, 1990). Specifically,
literature has indicated that physical educators often forgo assessment practices in their teaching
when they have large class sizes (Braga & Liversedge, 2017). This becomes particularly
important as class size contributes to both teacher effectiveness and student learning by lessening
student opportunities to respond and interact with the curriculum (Hastie & Saunders, 1991;
McNeill, Fry, Wright, Tan, Tan, & Schempp, 2004). Moreover, class size seems to be a relevant
factor which may contribute toward assessment conceptions and the quality of assessment
practiced by physical education teachers as research has indicated that under such conditions,
teachers feel that assessment is a less important task (Braga & Liversedge, 2017).
37
Rationale and Purpose of the Study
With the many functions and competing purposes of assessment (documentation,
accountability, monitor learning, providing feedback, inform teaching, student learning), there is
a need to better understand the personal and contextual factors that frame teachers’ assessment
literacy so as to increase the learning benefits of assessment while limiting potential negative
consequences associated with inappropriate assessment, such as inequitable teaching practices
(Hay & Penney, 2013). Through the lens of occupational socialization theory, teachers’
conceptions of assessment are developed through socialization and are related to their subjective
theories of teaching.
Figure 2.1 provides a graphical representation for understanding the impact of
occupational socialization on teachers’ perceived quality of assessment. As seen in the model,
teachers’ conceptions of assessment and workplace factors both directly influence teachers’
perceived quality of assessment. In addition, workplace factors also directly influence teachers’
conceptions of assessment and indirectly influence teachers’ perceived quality of assessment
through conceptions of assessment. Although not measured in the study, the representation of
teachers’ conceptions of assessment includes both teachers’ acculturation and professional
socialization. Occupational socialization theory literature supports this notion in that formative
experience during K-12 physical education programs and training during a PETE program will
have on teachers’ conceptions of assessment (Starck et al., 2018). Next, the influences of
workplace factors on teachers’ organizational socialization are measured through the constructs
of marginalization, perceived organizational support, and class size. Finally, the construct of
teachers’ perceived quality of assessment describes teachers’ actual practices in physical
education; however no direct observations were taken in the study.
38
Toward this end, the purpose of this study was to understand the influence of workplace
factors and conceptions of assessment on physical educators’ perceived quality of assessment in
physical education. The research questions include the following: (1) to examine the relationship
between teachers’ conceptions of assessment and their perceived quality of assessment; and (2)
to examine the relationship between various workplace factors and teachers’ perceived quality of
assessment.
Methods
Participants and Setting
Participants in this study were 90 physical education teachers from the state of Alabama.
The sample comprised of 47 males and 43 females. The school districts from which participants
were recruited from were employed in rural (n = 32; 36%), suburban (n = 39; 43%), and urban (n
= 19; 21%) areas. With respects to racial affiliation, the bulk of the participants were Caucasian
(n = 71; 79%), with fewer participants reporting African American (n = 14; 16%), mixed race (n
= 3; 3%), and Native American (n = 1; 1%) and reported an average age of 43 years old (SD ±
11.20). The average participant had been teaching for 15.6 years (SD ± 9.97), and more than half
of the participants had completed an advanced degree (58%). Finally, the participants were
mostly split between primary (n = 42; 47%) and secondary teaching levels (n = 44; 49%) with a
few itinerant teachers who worked across multiple school sites (n = 4; 4%).
Procedures and Instrumentation
Contact information of inservice physical education teachers were obtained through the
publicly available school websites of school districts in Alabama. An email was sent to 1,300
teachers drawn from school websites with an invitation to participate in the study. Teachers who
were interested in participating were asked to follow a URL link to an online survey. In addition
39
to the initial email, three follow-up emails were sent in two-week intervals to teachers who had
not yet completed the survey. Prior to administration, seven inservice physical education
teachers, and eight physical education doctoral students who did not subsequently participate in
the study completed a pilot test to identify potential errors in the survey structure. This included
identifying issues related to wording, flow of the survey, and to gauge approximate time of
completion. This pilot resulted in minimal changes to the survey and estimated a completion
time of approximately 15 – 20 minutes.
The final survey consisted of 65 items, including a 12 question demographic
questionnaire, the six-item Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), the five-item Marginalization (M) subscale of the
Physical Education Marginalization and Isolation Survey (PE-MAIS; Richards, Gaudreault, &
Woods, 2017), the 27-item Teachers' Conceptions of Assessment III (COA-III; Brown, 2006),
and the 15-item Quality of Assessment (QA) subscale from the Physical Education Assessment
Questionnaire (PEAQ; Borghouts, Slingerland, & Haerens, 2017).
Perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational support was measured using
six-items from the SPOS (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Sample items included: “my school really
cares about my well-being” and “my school cares about my opinion.” Items were measured
using a seven-point, Likert-type scale. For this scale, “very strongly disagree” represented the
lowest response stem and “very strongly agree” was the highest. Internal consistency reliability
has been demonstrated in previous research (Eisenberger et al., 1986), and was excellent in the
current study (Cronbach’s α =.98).
Marginalization. Marginalization was measured with the associated five-item subscale
from the PE-MAIS (Gaudreault et al., 2017). Sample items included: “I feel as if physical
40
education is a lower class subject in my school” and “as a physical education teacher, my
opinions are valued in my school (reverse scored).” Items were measured using a seven-point,
Likert-type scale. For this scale, “strongly disagree” represented the lowest response stem and
“strongly agree” was the highest. Internal consistency for the marginalization subscale has been
demonstrated through previous research (Gaudreault et al., 2017) and was good in the current
study (Cronbach’s α =.82).
Teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Teachers conceptions of assessment were
measured using the Abridged Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment III Inventory (Brown, 2006),
which examined conceptions of assessment along the four domains including (a) assessment
makes schools accountable (ASC; three items), (b) assessment makes students accountable
(AST; three items), (c) assessment improves education (AIE; second order construct including
four subdomains and 12 items), and (d) assessment is irrelevant (AIR; three items). Example
items included “assessment is an accurate indicator of a school’s quality” (ASC) and
“assessment is integrated with teaching practice” (AIE). Items were measured using a six-point,
Likert-type scale. For this scale, “strongly disagree” represented the lowest response stem and
“strongly agree” was the highest. In previous research, the inventory showed good model fit
through confirmatory factor analysis (Brown, 2006), and internal consistency reliability was
excellent in the current study (Cronbach’s α ranged from .90 to .94).
Quality of assessment. The 15-item QA subscale from the Physical Education
Assessment Questionnaire (Borghouts et al., 2017) was adopted as a second-order construct to
measure perceived quality aspects of assessment in physical education along five subdomains
that included (a) clear purpose, (b) clear targets, (c) sound design, (d) effective communication,
and (e) student involvement. Sample items included, “all physical education teachers in my
41
school use identical criteria for assessment” and “assessment criteria are shared with my students
prior to assessment” Items were measured using a five-point, Likert-type scale. For this scale
“strongly disagree” represented the lowest stem and “strongly agree” was the highest. Internal
consistency reliability has been demonstrated through previous research (Borghouts et al., 2017)
and was excellent in the current study (Cronbach’s α =.91).
Class size. Class size was measured by asking teachers to report the number of students
in their average class. Teachers responded to the question of “What is the average number of
students in the classes you teach?”
Data Analysis
The analysis process began with standard procedures for data cleaning and screening
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The data were then coded as necessary with Cronbach’s internal
consistency determined for scales and subscales to which all factors exceeded the α = .70
standard for internal consistency as well as indicators for each of the factors were averaged into
composite scores.
Relations between physical education teachers’ conceptions of assessment and workplace
factors on perceived quality of assessment were examined by way of Ordinary Least Squares
(OLS) regression. The approach to OLS model building followed a hierarchical blocking
procedure. As a part of this approach, main and interaction effects were tested between
predictors and outcomes, and also monitored (changes to) each model’s R-squared in order to
maximize each model’s explanatory power. The final model reflects model estimates that
demonstrate significant main effects between predictors and outcome (interaction effects were
not significant) and also had the best explanatory power. In order to maintain appropriate level of
statistical power in our analyses, our OLS models were limited to 7 predictor variables due to the
42
sample size (Austin & Steyerberg, 2015). The “alpha” threshold for statistical significance in our
analysis was “.05”. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 23.0.
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations
Table 2.1 displays several kinds of descriptive statistics. At the top of the table is a
correlation matrix which shows bivariate associations between the study constructs. These
associations were generally small; suggesting that the relationships between teachers’ perceived
quality of assessment, conceptions of assessment, and workplace factors is generally weak even
in the absence of controls. The bottom of Table 1 provides information about the means,
standard deviations, and range of each construct, as well as common indicators of skew.
The Relationship between Perceived Quality of Assessment, Conceptions of Assessment,
and Workplace Factors
As shown in Table 2.2, our first OLS regression model estimated the association between
teachers’ perceived quality of assessment and the following predictor variables: assessment
makes schools accountable, assessment makes students accountable, assessment improves
education, assessment is irrelevant, marginalization, perceived organizational support, and class
size. This association was not significant. Moreover, the Adjusted R-Square for this model was
.08, indicating that the model had very weak explanatory power.
As a consequence of the aforementioned null findings, concerns were raised about the
research question that was initially asked regarding teachers’ perceived quality of assessment. To
this end, it might be that teachers may not be using assessment in their practice; therefore we
should seek to understand teachers’ conceptions of assessment first. Toward this end, the
researchers performed an alternative set of post-hoc regression analyses with teachers’ valuation
43
toward assessment in their professional practice specified as an outcome variable of assessment
improves education. Our final OLS regression model is presented in Table 2.3. In this model
assessment improves education is the outcome variable and assessment makes schools
accountable, assessment makes students accountable, assessment is irrelevant, marginalization,
perceived organizational support, and class size are specified as predictors. This model yields an
Adjusted R-squared of .66, indicating that over two-thirds of the variance in assessment
improves education is explained by the included predictor variables.
In addition to the model Adjusted R-squared, this final model yielded several significant
coefficients. First, the relationship between assessment makes schools accountable and
assessment improves education was significant, (β = .45, p < .001). Next, there is a significant
relationship between assessment improves education and assessment makes students
accountable, (β = .19, p < .005). Further, significant relationships were found between
assessment is irrelevant and assessment improves education, (β = -.16, p < .005), and between
assessment improves education and perceived organizational support, (β = .19, p < .001). Finally,
a significant positive relationship yielded between marginalization and assessment improves
education, (β = .14, p < .005). Class size did not reveal a statistically significant relationship with
assessment improves education.
Discussion
Informed by occupational socialization theory (Lawson, 1986; Templin & Schempp,
1989), the purpose of this study was to understand the influence of workplace factors and
conceptions of assessment on teachers’ perceived quality of assessment practice. Initial results,
however, indicated that the predictor variables did not significantly predict perceived quality of
assessment. One explanation for these findings may be contributed to misconceptions teachers
44
hold related to the purposes of assessment. Following the occupational socialization theory
literature, recruits’ subjective theories related to what constitutes quality physical education are
often flawed or incomplete (Richards et al., 2013) including the role of assessment (Starck et al.,
2018). If these misconceptions are not challenged through PETE (Richards et al., 2014), recruits
subjective theories will likely be reflected in inservice teachers’ beliefs and practices. This may
mean that they do not fully understand the role of assessment as part of a quality physical
education program and therefore will not include it in their practice (DinanThompson & Penney,
2015).
Further, factors operating within school environments during organizational socialization,
such as pressure to conform to custodial teaching practices that do not recognize the importance
of assessment, may reduce the extent to which assessment is used (Curtner-Smith et al., 2008;
Veenman, 1984). Given that many aspiring physical educators do not value assessment, school
cultures do not support assessment, and there are no reasonable accountability measures to
ensure that physical educators are using assessment regularly (Rink, 2013), it is possible that the
teachers in this study were not using assessment regularly, which makes questions about the
quality of their assessment practice premature. This interpretation is supported in part by the
non-significant relationship between perceived quality of assessment and assessment to improve
education, and hints to a larger issue related to physical educators’ assessment literacy that
should be explored in future research (Hay & Penney, 2013).
The non-significant findings from the first regression analyses led us to run an additional
model to consider the relationship between teacher’s assessment conceptions and workplace
factors with the understanding that assessment conceptions likely precede perceived quality of
assessment. In both models, the predictor variable of class size did not reveal a significant
45
relationship with assessment improves education or perceived quality of assessment. Although
literature has suggested that large class size has an influence on school and teacher quality as
well as academic achievement (Braga & Liversedge, 2017; Hastie & Saunders, 1991), one
possible explanation for the non-significance in this study may be due to teachers’ holding
conceptions of assessment from an accountability perspective. With this in mind, teachers
viewed assessment from a high stakes perspective which may have rendered assessment for
improvement meaningless regardless of class size. This subsequent analysis however does
suggests that teachers’ conceptions of assessment to improve education can be explained, at least
in part, by the predictor variables of assessment makes schools accountable, assessment makes
students accountable, assessment is irrelevant, marginalization, and perceived organizational
support.
First, teachers in this study recognized their assessment conceptions to make schools and
students accountable as significant constructs in using assessment to improve education. One
rationale for the variance explained by the school and student accountability variables might be
due in part to policy efforts which emphasize assessment as a primary mechanism of evaluation
through which schools are held accountable from a performativity standpoint (DinanThompson
& Penney, 2015) and evaluate teachers by student performance outcomes (Rink, 2013).
Interestingly, as many policy efforts to measure teacher effectiveness are based on a model that
does not differentiate physical education from other subjects (Rink, 2014), teachers may not see
the relevance of utilizing assessment for other purposes. How each school prioritizes
effectiveness, therefore, serves as a mechanism of accountability. Research continues to indicate,
for example, that administration still tends to prioritize busy, happy, good practices (Norris et al.,
2017; Placek, 1983) in physical education, which contributes to a lack of innovation in the
46
discipline. Moreover, given the literature supporting teachers’ lack of assessment literacy and
misconceptions of assessment, teachers will continue to prioritize high stakes assessment
(Hawley & Valli, 1999) unless their conceptions of assessment are met with discussions and
training is provided which values assessment in the teaching-learning process.
The significant relationship identified between assessment improves education and
assessment is irrelevant is consistent with previous research indicating that teachers place low
importance on assessment in physical education (Braga & Liversedge, 2017). Literature from
occupational socialization theory suggests that because many physical education teachers do not
experience physical education programs which utilize assessment in ways other than traditional
formats (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015), their conception of what it means to be a physical
educator (Templin & Schempp, 1989) does not include assessment. Further, research has
indicated that PETE programs often have little influence on changing recruits conceptions of
assessment (Curtner-Smith, 1999; Lund & Veal, 2008) and instead maintain a belief that
assessment is irrelevant upon entering their first job. Further, literature suggests that there are
few teachers who use innovative practices such assessment, and those who do, face resistance
and conform to custodial practices (Hamodi, López-Pastor, & López-Pastor, 2017). Given the
current culture surrounding assessment in many schools (Rink, 2013) and teachers’ lack of
assessment literacy, there is call for PETE programs to intentionally build assessment into
programs to help future teachers understand its role as a part of the teaching-learning process
(DinanThompson & Penney, 2015; Goc Karp & Woods, 2008; Lund & Veal, 2008; Starck et al.,
2018).
The final regression analysis also indicated that marginalization was a significant,
positive predictor of teachers’ conception of assessment to improve education that could be
47
explained in two competing theories. First, teachers’ conception that assessment is used make
schools accountable emphasizes its role in publicly demonstrating schools and teachers who are
delivering quality instruction (Smith & Fey, 2000) and identifies those who are effective.
However, those who are not valued and viewed as effective may be presented with consequences
(Brown, 2004). From this perspective, with policy producing a mechanism of what is valued
with more or less importance (Hay & Penney, 2013), physical education teachers’ feelings of
marginalization may help to explain the importance placed on assessment to improve education.
Although in contrast to research in physical education, teachers in these schools may feel
pressure to adapt measures of assessment for school accountability with the goal of minimizing
feelings of marginalization to legitimize physical education as a field and afford them status in
their school (Richards & Hemphill, 2017).
The second explanation for the marginalization as a positive predictor of assessment to
improve education is in line with much of the occupational socialization literature. Given the
limited demonstration of authentic assessment in inservice physical education teaching (López-
Pastor et al., 2013), physical educators who conceptualize assessment to improve education may
feel marginal effects from their own peers who do not conceptualize assessment the same way
(Hamodi et al., 2017). Occupational socialization theory indicates that teachers who try to utilize
innovative practices, such as assessment, may be confronted by more experienced colleagues and
administrators who do not believe that physical education should include assessment (Norris et
al., 2017). This can result in a pressure to conform so that teachers who use assessment in an
attempt to strategically redefine (Lacey, 1977) the status quo of their school, ultimately face
social risks. In other words, given the belief in assessment as a way to improve physical
education is incongruent with the prevailing understanding of physical education as a non-
48
assessed subject, it may actually cause additional feelings of marginalization. Teachers who have
reported valuing assessment for improvement of education, though when feeling marginalized,
may be challenged towards the continuation of the non-teaching physical education teacher cycle
(Curtner-Smith, 2009).
Finally, perceived organization support was a significant and positive predictor in
understanding teachers’ conception that assessment improves education. Research has indicated
that teachers who perceive organizational support from their school organization in which they
are working, are more likely utilize effective teaching practices central to the mission of the
school (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997; Hochwarter, Kacmar, Perrewe, &
Johnson, 2003). In contrast, lack of perceived organizational support may hinder physical
education teachers’ ability to utilize sounds practices such as using assessment to monitor
student learning (Hastie & Saunders, 1991; Veal, 1990). However, as many school
administrators’ priorities often do not align with innovative practices learned in PETE, teachers
may perceive less organizational support if the school environment and culture do not cultivate
innovative practices toward utilizing assessment in physical education (Curtner-Smith et al.,
2008).
Implications for Practice
Particularly, the importance in this study lies in how each school prioritizes and
determines teacher effectiveness as well as recognition of teachers’ lack of assessment literacy.
As many administrators rating of teacher effectiveness is based on little training and subjective
measures (Norris et al., 2017) and more often toward busy, happy, good practices (Placek, 1983),
teachers’ should advocate for what effectiveness looks like and identify outcomes for their
program. Therefore, there is a call to educate administration and policy makers on the contextual
49
differences of physical education and what quality physical education teaching looks like.
However, if actual changes are to be made, this cannot be left to teachers alone, “our state and
national organizations, pedagogy faculty in our colleges and universities, district coordinators,
and teachers in the field” all need to be involved in the process (Rink, 2014, p. 285).
In addition to advocating and educating policy makers, this study also draws attention to
the need to increase inservice teachers’ assessment literacy. Due to the conceptions which were
presented by teachers, it is clear PETE faculty need to work alongside and collaborate with
inservice teachers to help to develop assessment literacy while recognizing workplace
complexities. Equally important, there is also a strong need for PETE programs to intentionally
build assessment into programs to develop assessment literacy among preservice teachers. To
reduce the risks of reality shock and a washout of practices upon entrance into the schools,
preservice teachers need to challenge their assumptions while navigating the realities of the
school environment (Starck et al., 2018).
Limitations and Future Directions
This study sought to provide a large-scale quantitative analysis of the relationship
between inservice teachers’ conceptions of assessment, influences of workplace factors, and their
perceived quality of assessment. While some important conclusions can be drawn from this
work, there are some important limitations that should be taken into consideration. First, the
sample size and response rate were rather low. While lower response rates do not necessarily
mean lower response representativeness (Lambert & Miller, 2014), the small sample limited our
opportunities to explore relationships among the variables. A larger sample, for example, would
have allowed us to consider more nuanced statistical techniques such as structural equation
modeling. Second, the sample population in this study was contained to only a small population
50
of teachers in the state of Alabama, therefore the results may not be representative of all regions
of the state, U.S., or global community. Particularly, it is important to consider the differing
policies that guide physical education including the use of assessment from state to state as well
as the teacher/role conflict many teachers are presented with. Future scholars should survey
teachers in others regions to see if the findings are transferable beyond the U.S. southeast.
Due to the individualistic nature of teaching, Brown (2004) suggested that it is critical
that assessment conceptions and relationships of conceptions be made visible. As no variance
was explained in teachers’ perceived quality of assessment, how assessment is understood by
physical education teachers in the teaching-learning process should be at the forefront of future
research. To this end, there is relevance in acknowledging barriers and facilitators which lead to
the increased and effective use of assessment practices to promote equity among children in
physical education. Moreover, as previously stated by DinanThompson and Penny (2015), there
is a strong need to qualitatively look at inservice teachers’ and preservice teachers assessment
literacy from a sociocultural perspective. Specifically, investigators should consider what
influences teachers’ decision making and how they understand the teaching-learning process to
ensure student learning. In addition, research should seek to understand how physical education
teacher effectiveness is understood and prioritized within in various school contexts. Finally,
developing and testing interventions during PETE that overcome the influence of acculturation
and help preservice teachers develop assessment literacy (Starck et al., 2018) is necessary.
51
References
Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (1998). Physical education teachers' lives and careers: PE, sport,
and educational status. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Austin, P. C., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2015). The number of subjects per variable required in linear
regression analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 627-636.
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2011). Organizational socialization: The effective onboarding of
new employees. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 51-64).
Washington, DC: American Psychologyical Association.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Blankenship, B. T., & Coleman, M. M. (2009). An examination of "wash out" and workplace
conditions of beginning physical education teachers. Physical Educator, 66(2), 97-111.
Bogler, R., & Nir, A. E. (2012). The importance of teachers' perceived organizational support to
job satisfaction: What's empowerment got to do with it? Journal of Educational
Administration, 50(3), 287-306.
Borghouts, L. B., Slingerland, M., & Haerens, L. (2017). Assessment quality and practices in
secondary PE in the Netherlands. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 22(5), 473-489.
Braga, L., & Liversedge, P. (2017). Challenges and facilitators to the implementation of a sport
education season: The voices of teacher candidates. Physical Educator, 74(1), 19-40.
Brown, G. T. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and
professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
11(3), 301-318.
Brown, G. T. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged version.
Psychological Reports, 99(1), 166-170.
Capel, S. (2016). Value orientations of student physical education teachers learning to teach on
school-based initial teacher education courses in England. European Physical Education
Review, 22(2), 167-184.
52
Cho, J., Laschinger, H. S., & Wong, C. (2006). Workplace empowerment, work engagement and
organizational commitment of new graduate nurses. Nursing Leadership Academy of
Canadian Executive Nurses, 19(3), 43.
Curtner-Smith, M. (2009). Breaking the cycle of non-teaching physical education teachers:
Lessons to be learned from the occupational socialization literature. In D. L. Housner, M.
W. Metzler, P. G. Schempp, & T. J. Templin (Eds.), Historic traditions and future
directions of research on teaching and teacher education in Physical Education (pp. 221-
226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1999). The more things change the more they stay the same: Factors
influencing teachers’ interpretations and delivery of National Curriculum. Physical
Education, Sport, Education and Society, 4(1), 75–97.
Curtner-Smith, M. D., Hastie, P. A., & Kinchin, G. D. (2008). Influence of occupational
socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport,
Education and Society, 13(1), 97-117.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.
DinanThompson, M., & Penney, D. (2015). Assessment literacy in primary physical education.
European Physical Education Review, 21(4), 485-503. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15584087
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation
of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(5), 812-820.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 1026-1040.
Eldar, E., Nabel, N., Schechter, C., Talmor, R., & Mazin, K. (2003). Anatomy of success and
failure: The story of three novice teachers. Educational Research, 45(1), 29-48.
Ensign, J., & Woods, A. M. (2017). Navigating the realities of the induction years: Exploring
approaches for supporting beginning physical education teachers. Quest, 69(1), 80-94.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1152983
Gaudreault, K. L., Richards, K. A. R., & Woods, A. M. (2017). Initial validation of the phyical
education marginalization and isolation survey (PE-MAIS). Measurement in Physical
Education and Exercise Science, 21(2), 1-14.
Goc Karp, G., & Woods, M. L. (2008). Preservice teachers' perceptions about assessment and its
implementation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(3), 327-346.
53
Grotjahn, R. (1991). The research programme subjective theories. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13(2), 187-214.
Hamodi, C., López-Pastor, V. M., & López-Pastor, A. T. (2017). If I experience formative
assessment whilst studying at university, will I put it into practice later as a teacher?
Formative and shared assessment in initial teacher education (ITE). European Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(2), 171-190. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2017.1281909
Hastie, P. A., & Saunders, J. E. (1991). Effects of class size and equipment availability on
student involvement in physical education. The Journal of Experimental Education,
59(3), 212-224. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1991.10806561
Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new
consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning
profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2013). Assessment in physical education: A sociocultural perspective.
New York: Routledge.
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C., Perrewe, P. L., & Johnson, D. (2003). Perceived organizational
support as a mediator of the relationship between politics perceptions and work
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 438-456.
James, A. R., Griffin, L., & Dodds, P. (2009). Perceptions of middle school assessment: An
ecological view. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 323-334.
Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen.
Lambert, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2014). Lower response rates on alumni surveys might not mean
lower response representitiveness. Educational Research, 37(3), 38-51.
Lawson, H. A. (1983a). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: Entry
into schools, teachers’ role orientations, and longevity in teaching (part 2). Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 3(1), 3-15.
Lawson, H. A. (1983b). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The
subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 2(3), 3-16.
Lawson, H. A. (1986). Occupational socialization and the design of teacher education programs.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5(2), 107-116.
Lawson, H. A. (1989). From rookie to veteran: Workplace conditions in physical education and
induction into the profession. In T. J. Templin & P. G. Schempp (Eds.), Socialization into
physical education: Learning to teach (pp. 145-164). Indianapolis: Benchmark Press.
54
López-Pastor, V. M., Kirk, D., Lorente-Catalán, E., MacPhail, A., & Macdonald, D. (2013).
Alternative assessment in physical education: A review of international literature. Sport,
Education and Society, 18(1), 57-76.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lund, J. L., & Veal, M. L. (2008). Chapter 4: Measuring pupil learning—how do student
teachers assess within instructional models? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
27(4), 487-511.
Lux, K., & McCullick, B. A. (2011). How one exceptional teacher navigated her working
environment as the teacher of a marginal subject. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 30(4), 358-374.
Lynn, S. K., & Woods, A. M. (2010). Following the yellow brick road: A teacher’s journey
along the proverbial career path. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(1), 54-
71.
MacPhail, A., & Halbert, J. (2010). 'We had to do intelligent thinking during recent PE':
Students' and teachers' experiences of assessment for learning in post-primary physical
education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 23-29.
McNeill, M., Fry, J., Wright, S., Tan, W., Tan, K., & Schempp, P. (2004). ‘In the local context’:
Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education and Society,
9(1), 3-32.
Mercier, K., & Doolittle, S. (2013). Assessing student achievement in physical eduation for
teacher evaluation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(3), 38-42.
Norris, J., van der Mars, H., Kulinna, P., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Kwon, J., & Hodges, M. (2017).
Physical education teacher perceptions of teacher evaluation. Physical Educator, 74(1),
41-62.
O’Sullivan, M. (1989). Failing gym is like failing lunch or recess: Two beginning teachers’
struggle for legitimacy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8(3), 227-242.
Placek, J. (1983). Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy and good. In T. Templin & J.
Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 46-56). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203-220.
Richards, K. A. R., & Gaudreault, K. (2017). Socialization into physical education: Learning
from the past and looking to the future. In K. A. R. Richards & K. Lux-Gaudreault (Eds.),
Teacher socialization in physical education: New perspectives (pp. 3-10). New York:
Taylor & Francis.
55
Richards, K. A. R., Gaudreault, K. L., & Woods, A. M. (2017). Understanding physical
educators’ perceptions of mattering: Validation of the perceived mattering questionnaire–
physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23(1), 73-90.
Richards, K. A. R., & Hemphill, M. A. (2017). Using role theory to understand the experiences
of physical education teachers: Toward role socialization theory. In K. A. R. Richards &
K. L. Gauault (Eds.), Teacher socialization in physical education: New perspectives (pp.
147-161). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J., & Gaudreault, K. L. (2013). Understanding the realities of
school life: Recommendations for the preparation of physical education teachers. Quest,
65(4), 442-457.
Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J., & Graber, K. (2014). The socialization of teachers in physical
education: Review and recommendations for future works. Kinesiology Review, 3(2),
113-134.
Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Blankenship, B. T. (2014).
Understanding differences in role stressors, resilience, and burnout in teacher/coaches
and non-coaching teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(3), 383-402.
Rink, J. (2014). Teacher effectiveness in physical education—consensus? Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 85(3), 282-286.
Rink, J. E. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 407-418.
Schempp, P. G., & Graber, K. C. (1992). Teacher socialization from a dialectical perspective:
Pretraining through induction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11(4), 329-
348.
Smith, M. L., & Fey, P. (2000). Validity and accountability in high-stakes testing. Journal of
Teacher Education, 51(5), 334-344.
Society of Health and Physical Educators America. (2009). Appropriate Instructional Practices
Guidelines, K-12: A Side-by-Side Comparison [Press release]
Sparkes, A. C., Templin, T. J., & Schempp, P. G. (1993). Exploring dimensions of marginality:
Reflecting on the life histories of physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 12(4), 386-398.
Starck, J. R., Richards, K. A. R., & O’Neil, K. (2018). A conceptual framework for assessment
literacy: Opportunities for physical education teacher education. Quest, 1-17. doi:
10.1080/00336297.2018.1465830
56
Stern, C., & Keislar, E. R. (1977). Teacher attitudes and attitude change: A research review.
Journal of Research & Development in Education, 10(2), 63-76.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Templin, T. J., & Richards, K. A. R. (2014). CH McCloy Lecture: Reflections on socialization
into physical education: An intergenerational perspective. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 85(4), 431-445.
Templin, T. J., & Schempp, P. G. (1989). Running on ice: A case study of the influence of
workplace conditions on a secondary physical educator. In T. J. Templin & P. G.
Schempp (Eds.), Socialization into physical education: Learning to teach (pp. 165-197).
Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark.
Templin, T. J., & Schempp, P. G. (1989). Socialization into physical education: Learning to
teach. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics leaching and learning (pp. 127-
146). New York: Macmillan.
Veal, M. L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation curricula in professional physical education
preparation programs—a view from the practitioner. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 61(3), 36-38.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 54(2), 143-178.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career
choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 15(8), 861-879.
Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. (1983). Teacher perspectives in the face of the institutional
press. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education
"washed out" by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7-11.
57
Table 2.1
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Assessment Variables
Scale QA AIE ASC AST AIR POS M CS
QA 1.00
AIE .26* 1.00
ASC .21 .71** 1.00
AST .22* .53** .48** 1.00
AIR -.13 -.21* -.15 .10 1.00
POS .22* .41** .27** .17 -.17 1.00
M -.25* -.19 -.25* -.05 .18 -.70** 1.00
CS -.01 -.09 -.11 -.05 .10 .08 -.06 1.00
Mean 3.22 3.83 3.72 4.11 3.15 5.27 3.53 57.61
SD .83 .86 1.09 1.00 .70 1.46 1.35 30.29
Skewness -.35 .11 -.13 -.35 .25 -.71 .28 1.30
Kurtosis -.26 .45 -.66 .18 -.09 .40 -.39 1.20
Minimum 1.27 1.42 1.00 1.00 1.56 1.00 1.00 25.00
Maximum 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 4.89 7.00 7.00 150.00
Note. Variables POS & M were measured on a seven-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to
7. AIE, ASC, AST, & AIR were measured on a six-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 6.
QA was measured on a five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 6. QA = Perceived quality
of assessment; AIE = Assessment improves education; ASC = Assessment makes schools
accountable; AST = Assessment makes students accountable; AIR = Assessment is irrelevant;
POS = Perceived organizational support; M = Marginalization; CS = Class size; SD = Standard
deviation. **p < .01; *p < .05.
58
Table 2.2
Regression Table of Conceptions of Assessment Influencing Perceived Quality of Assessment
B SE B Beta (β) t Sig. (p)
Constant 3 .881 3.404 .001
Assessment Makes Schools Accountable -.103 .120 -.134 -.790 .432
Assessment Makes Students Accountable .134 .113 .158 1.182 .240
Assessment Improves Education .292 .173 .305 1.685 .096
Assessment is Irrelevant -.085 .130 -.072 -.657 .513
Marginalization -.168 .095 -.274 -1.777 .079
Perceived Organizational Support -.071 .093 -.125 -.769 .444
Class Size .003 .003 .114 1.080 .283
Adjusted R2 = .08
F = 7,81, sig F change: p = .05
Table 2.3
Regression Table of Variables Influencing Assessment Improves Education
B SE B Beta (β) t Sig. (p)
Constant .523 .558 .936 .352
Schools Accountable .451 .066 .561 6.793 .000
Students Accountable .191 .069 .216 2.770 .007
Assessment is Irrelevant -.163 .081 -.131 -2.020 .047
Marginalization .142 .058 .222 2.443 .017
Perceived Organizational Support .187 .055 .312 3.369 .001
Marginalization .142 .058 .222 2.443 .017
Class Size -.002 .002 -.080 -1.253 .214
Adjusted R2 = .66
F = 6,82, sig F change: p < .000
59
Figure 2.1 Visual representation of the impact of occupational socialization on teachers’
perceived quality of assessment.
60
CHAPTER 3
PRESERVICE TEACHERS ASSESSMENT LITERACY WITHIN
MODELS BASED PRACTICE
Abstract
Regular assessment of student practices in Sport Education is a critical part of the
pedagogical model, however learning to plan with curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in
alignment has demonstrated to be a difficult task for preservice teachers. Using the assessment
literacy framework, the purpose of this study was to explore how preservice teachers understand
and enact the message system (assessment, pedagogy, and curriculum) while employing the
Sport Education model in an early field experience. Specific research questions included: (a)
how do preservice teachers make instructional decisions related to models-based practice?, (b)
how and to what degree assessment practices are driven by the model?, and (c) how preservice
teachers’ understanding and beliefs of assessment correspond with their practices? Six
participants were purposely selected due to enrollment in advanced physical education methods
course and had experienced success in previous Sport Education seasons. Preservice teachers
taught Sport Education at local elementary schools for 12 class periods (45 minute lessons)
totaling 540 instructional minutes. Data collection included interviews (formal, focus group and
informal), reflective journals, passive participation observation, document collection, and video
recordings of lessons. Analysis included inductive and deductive analysis using open, axial, and
final coding. Trustworthiness included data triangulation, peer debriefer, negative case analysis,
member checking, and an audit trail. Results from the study revealed a lack of assessment
61
literacy upon implementation in a field experience setting. Participants reported a lack of time
and feeling pressure to get through all features of the model in order to use assessment
effectively. In contrast, one participant felt the use of assessment afforded him the ability to shift
control to the students as the model progresses. Although the preservice teachers demonstrated
an understanding and value of assessment, they struggled to utilize assessment as a critical part
of the process in a field based setting. Future research should explore how the message system is
understood and enacted in different contextual settings.
Keywords: models-based practice, physical education teacher education, assessment, teaching-
learning process
Introduction
Assessment in physical education has changed over the years toward the use of integrated
and alternative assessment practices, however, scholars lament that assessment is “far from
regular, integral, widespread, and educationally productive” (López-Pastor, Kirk, Lorente-
Catalán, MacPhail, & Macdonald, 2013, p. 73). While recognized as a process of collection and
interpretation of information on students’ performance (Desrosiers, Genet-Volet, & Godbout,
1997), assessment can also serve to communicate subtle messages, while shaping the values and
expectations for learning (Redelius & Hay, 2009). Although assessment appears to be embedded
in inservice teachers practices, it continues to remain superficial (DinanThompson & Penney,
2015) in how it is understood as a part of the teaching-learning process. Furthermore, assessment
tends to be the ‘missing ingredient’ in quality educational practices as it is assumed or implicit in
pedagogical and curriculum knowledge but is rarely taught (DinanThompson (2013). Empirical
evidence suggests that preservice and novice teachers struggle to take assessment theory from
62
the classroom and apply it in their teaching practice (Collier, 2011) and possess a lack of literacy
(DinanThompson & Penney, 2015).
Upon entering the schools many preservice teachers feel unprepared to teach when they
realize that what is taught in schools is different than how they were prepared to teach (Wood,
1996). Consequently, there is a call for physical education teacher education (PETE) programs to
not only provide students with knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become effective teachers
but also prepare them for the realities of schools (Richards, Templin, & Gaudreault, 2013). As an
essential component of the teaching-learning process (Society of Health and Physical Educators
America, 2009), is imperative for PETE programs to prepare preservice teachers to understand
and appropriately use assessment in schools. However, the realities of schools can also
undermine efforts to implement quality physical education practice and lead to the washing out
of behaviors learned during PETE in favor of more traditional pedagogies or non-teaching
approaches (Blankenship & Coleman, 2009).
Many preservice teachers did not experience a K-12 physical education program which
utilized assessment effectively (Lund & Veal, 2008), instead they experienced many traditional
and evaluative forms of assessment such as the Presidential Fitness test or the FITNESSGRAM
test (López-Pastor et al., 2013). Empirical evidence suggests that therefore many preservice
teachers commonly reduce assessment to an isolate event instead of being tied to the foreground
of learning (Hay & Penney, 2013). Moreover, many preservice teachers demonstrate resistance
of assessment activities due conceptions, beliefs, and values they hold (Capel, 2016; Lawson,
1983a).
Therefore, if effective practices are to include more than a superficial understanding of
assessment, then preservice teachers need to have the technical capacities for conducting
63
assessment and understand the broader sociocultural environment they teach in and contribute to
(Hay & Penney, 2013). Moreover, since assessment knowledge, practices, and the interrelation
between curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment are critical to attaining educative outcomes
(DinanThompson, 2013), there is a need for thorough understanding of how preservice teachers
learn to use assessment. Although there are initial reports describing preservice teachers’
assessment practices in the recent literature (Goc Karp & Woods, 2008; Lorente-Catalán & Kirk,
2016; Lund & Veal, 2008) there is a dearth of research on how preservice teachers understand
and utilize assessment in the teaching-learning process and during field based experiences.
Assessment Literacy Framework
Assessment literacy framework can serve as a valuable framework to critically examine
the technical qualities and sociocultural practices teachers and students possess towards
assessment (Hay & Penney, 2013). Literacy is often recognized as the ability to read and write,
however, Stiggins (1991) work on assessment literacy has shown the need to include a critical
component to its structure. Assessment literacy is then conceptualized not only as an
understanding of assessment and its tools, but an “understanding [of] how to design quality
assessment tasks, scrutinize assessment data, and ask questions about what assessment tell
students” (Stiggins, 1991, p. 535). Recently, Hay and Penny (2013) further extended this notion
of assessment literacy in physical education asserting that assessment is fundamentally social and
contextually bound. Thus, including both technical and sociocultural aspects, the assessment
literacy framework (Hay & Penney, 2013) is theorized to comprise of four inter-related
components of assessment comprehension, assessment application, assessment interpretation,
and critical engagement with assessment. Moreover, assessment literacy framework provides
insights into how teachers understand and utilize assessment as a part of the teaching-learning
64
process while acknowledging the sociopolitical influences and realties of schools settings and the
influence on their ability to become effective physical education teachers (Richards &
Gaudreault, 2017).
Comprehension
The first component in the literacy framework, comprehension, is defined as “focusing on
knowledge and understanding of assessment expectations and conditions of efficacy” (Hay &
Penney, 2013, p. 73). Key to teachers’ comprehension is how assessment is understood in
alignment with curriculum and pedagogy as a part of the teaching-learning process. Specifically,
this includes a general understanding of assessment, facilitation of student learning, promotion of
authentic learning experiences, and recognition of the interpretations and basis for judgments
made. In addition to grasping the relationship amongst the teaching-learning process,
comprehension also encompasses one’s technical skills which include his or her knowledge of
assessment tools, assessment techniques, and being able to articulate the logic to which it is
utilized in teaching. For example, this might include differentiating between using assessment for
learning or assessment of learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998) and discerning and incorporating
formative and summative assessments for their intended purposes (Lund & Kirk, 2010)
throughout a unit.
However, because many students enter a physical education teacher education program
without much insight into quality assessment through their apprenticeship of observation (Lortie,
1975), their ideologies as a teacher (Templin & Schempp, 1989) have a direct influence on their
beliefs and values for physical education teaching (Curtner-Smith, 2017) and make up much of
their subject theories (Richards et al., 2013). Further, pre-service teachers’ understanding is often
incomplete and or may emphasize traditional teaching methods where assessment is regarded as
65
an obstacle instead of a necessary part of the teaching-learning process (Matanin & Tannehill,
1994). Moreover, such beliefs have an impact on how future teachers engage with and
comprehend assessment (Brown, 2004).
Application
While “focusing on the conduct of assessment in terms of either teacher implementation
or student engagement,” the second component of literacy framework, application,
acknowledges the need for preservice teachers to practice using assessment tasks in different
environments while providing evidence of student learning (Hay & Penney, 2013, p. 73).
Fundamentally, application of assessment is inseparable from comprehension in that it requires
one to apply what they know about assessment in their teaching. With this in mind, a teacher’s
comprehension of assessment as a part of the teaching-learning process will result in a different
outcome or application based on how it is understood.
Application of assessment is a dynamic process that occurs between the teacher and the
student which impacts on how students learn. From a sociocultural perspective, teachers should
take into consideration the context when collecting and reproducing data on student learning to
ensure it is based on valid assumptions to which interpretations can be made from (Hay &
Penney, 2013). For example, upon application, teachers must ensure they provide students with
expectations of criteria in advance of utilizing assessment and must articulate the importance of
those criteria to focus student attention. However, it is often that preservice teachers don’t have
opportunities to practice application of assessment in alignment with curriculum and pedagogy,
making it difficult for them to question their own subjective theories and move towards
espousing values and beliefs representative of effective practices in PETE (Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979). As there are incongruences between assessment practices advocated in teacher
66
preparation programs and the assessment practices of in-service teachers (Wood, 1996),
preservice teachers may use poor practices in field experiences to reaffirm their subjective
theories and undermine PETE programs (Sofo & Curtner-Smith, 2005). Therefore, due to the
lack of assessment culture in student teaching placement sites and non-established assessment
culture in class, many preservice teachers have found it difficult to use assessment application in
a field based experience (Lund & Veal, 2008).
Interpretation
The third component, interpretation is defined as “focusing on making sense of and
acting on the information that is collected through assessment practices, which includes
traversing and negotiating the social relations of assessment,” while also developing a plan to act
upon the assessment information they have gathered (Hay & Penney, 2013, p. 73). Hay and
Penney (2013) suggest that interpretation of assessment relates to the two primary purposes of
assessment in that the data allow teachers to make decisions and inform changes to their
pedagogy and curriculum as well as to delineate student learning in comparison to the criteria put
forth.
Interpretation of assessment for both evaluation of student learning and informing
teaching practices are important facets for teachers to consider, however both are also directly
influenced by student comprehension and application of assessment. For example, if a teacher
were to see assessment as something that occurs at the end of a unit, they would not utilize
formative assessments and would inevitability not use it to inform their teaching-learning
process. Lund and Veal (2008) have suggested that preservice teacher tend to endure challenges
particularly when using formative assessment to inform teaching outside of grading. Likewise, if
upon application, the teacher does not provide criteria to which the assessment evaluation is
67
based on, their interpretations are not valid (Hay & Penney, 2013). Further, challenges associated
with interpretation have been identified as having difficulty in clearly articulating and setting a
standard of criteria (Wyatt-Smith, Klenowski, & Gunn, 2010 2010). Moreover, the consideration
of models-based practice outcomes with skill outcomes, adds another layer to the intricacies in
aligning assessments with unit outcomes (Lund & Veal, 2008).
Critical Engagement
The fourth component, critical engagement, “promotes consideration of the contribution
of assessment to the teacher’s power in the field and its impact on the social dynamics of the
classroom” (Hay & Penney, 2013, p. 77). When conceptualizing the notion of power,
assessment provides an unequal balance with most of the weight given to the teacher. Given that
assessment denotes what is of value and of importance, a critical consideration of the message it
portrays to students in necessary. With this in mind, an interpretation of the results must be
treated with caution in understanding the limitations of results toward student learning.
Given physical education’s goal of promoting lifelong movers who value physical
activity (Society of Health and Physical Educators America, 2009), physical educators are
charged with a difficult job of not only holding students accountable for learning but also
ensuring that the limitations and interpretations made about assessments do not communicate or
dissuade students toward this ultimate goal. Further, critical engagement with assessment draws
attention to the realities of the school and the social dynamics which occur between the teacher
and the student. For example, a student may be given a poor grade from an assessment and
without explanation, explicit criteria, or justification of the grade, there may be negative
consequences toward future learning and motivation to engage in physical activity for those
students (Hay & Penney, 2013).
68
Assessment literacy for teachers includes both the knowledge and ability to utilize
assessment it the field while also understanding the outcomes of data and awareness of the
consequences it may have on students. This framework presents four interrelated components
which refer to “the capacities of teachers and students to engage with and utilize assessment
practices and outcomes in a way that optimizes learning possibilities” (Hay & Penney, 2013, p.
81). Given preservice teachers difficulties in achieving both content and models outcomes (Lund
& Veal, 2008), the assessment literacy framework serves as a way to frame how preservice
teachers make instructional decisions.
Assessment in Models-Based Practice: Sport Education
Innovative practices that have been on the forefront of contemporary physical education
include models-based practice or pedagogical models (Haerens, Kirk, Cardon, & De
Bourdeaudhuij, 2011 & De, 2011; Kirk, 2013; López-Pastor et al., 2013; Siedentop, Hastie, &
van der Mars, 2011; Tannehill, van der Mars, & MacPhail, 2015). Kirk (2013) noted that out of
many pedagogical models, such as Teaching Games for Understanding, Teaching Personal and
Social Responsibility and others, Sport Education is the most researched, as well as soundly
justified, philosophically. The goal of Sport Education is to help students “develop as competent,
literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons” (Siedentop et al., 2011, p. 4). To accomplish this goal,
the structure of Sport Education includes a set of non-negotiable features as necessary elements
of maintaining fidelity to the model (Hastie & Casey, 2014). These non-negotiable features
include developing affiliation by the virtue of students remaining as a part of the same group
(team) for the duration of the unit, engaging in nonplaying roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer,
manager, referee, statistician) that facilitate the flow of the season, structuring formal
69
competition, maintaining individual and team records, and promoting festivity that includes a
culminating event or championship game (Siedentop et al., 2011).
Regular assessment of student practices in Sport Education is a critical part of this
pedagogical model (Siedentop et al., 2011). Differing from traditional teaching approaches,
Sport Education is designed to provide authentic, educationally rich sporting experiences which
scholars consequently suggest using authentic assessment within its structure (Siedentop et al.,
2011; Sinelnikov, Hastie, & Prusak, 2007). The learning outcomes of the model should include
students’ performance as players, as well as their performance in non-playing roles (e.g., coach,
statistician, and referee) among others. Lund and Kirk (2010) further suggest that performance
based assessments, which highlight authenticity, are typically open-ended, complex, and are to
be used in units that are long enough to allow in depth learning, which is the case with Sport
Education. Such assessments then, can and should be continuous and ongoing (Siedentop et al.,
2011).
However, learning to plan for a Sport Education season with the understanding that
curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment are in alignment has demonstrated to be a difficult task
for preservice teachers (Braga & Liversedge, 2017). When implementing a full Sport Education
season, preservice and inservice teachers suggest that it requires a lot of time and energy
(McCaughtry, Sofo, Rovegno, & Curtner-Smith, 2004) and is hectic and tough (Braga &
Liversedge, 2017). However, teachers report that carrying out the assessment within the
structure of Sport Education was easier than doing so during traditional teaching (Clarke &
Quill, 2003).
While there have been a number of studies describing different approaches to introducing
models-based practice within physical education teacher education programs (Sinelnikov &
70
Hastie, 2017), there is a lack of empirical research examining preservice teachers’
implementation of assessment within models-based practice. Yet, it is critical since “contextually
specific way in which quality curriculum, pedagogy and assessment can and should be
advanced” need to be investigated (Penney, Brooker, Hay, & Gillespie, 2009, p. 438). Therefore,
using the of assessment literacy framework, the purpose of this study was to explore how
preservice teachers understand and enact the message system (assessment, pedagogy and
curriculum) while employing the Sport Education model in an early field experience. Specific
research questions include: (a) how do preservice teachers make instructional decisions related to
models-based practice? (b) how and to what degree assessment practices are driven by the
model?, and (c) how preservice teachers’ understanding and beliefs of assessment correspond
with their practices?
Methods
Participants and Setting
Six participants were purposely selected from a southeastern university. Criteria for
selection included: (a) enrollment in advanced physical education methods course, (b) successful
completion of systematic and repeated set of experiences focused on models-based practices
(Stran & Curtner-Smith, 2009), which included teaching a minimum of five units using models-
based practice and a minimum of three seasons of Sport Education. All participants were in their
final year of the physical education teacher education program and were between ages 20 and 24.
Of the six participants, five were male, one was female, and all were Caucasian. Over the course
of seven weeks, the preservice teachers taught Sport Education seasons at three local elementary
schools. At school A, grades three through five were taught with approximately 30 students in
each class and a student body which was made up by predominately Caucasian students at 86%;
71
at school B, grades three through five were taught with approximately 60 students per class with
a study body made up by 68% African American and 24% Caucasian students; and finally at
school C, grades two through four were taught in class sizes of approximately 25 students with a
student body that was made up by majority of African American students (94%). Following
Siedentop and colleagues’ (2011) recommendation for Sport Education season length at
elementary grade level, each preservice teacher taught Sport Education for a total of 12 class
periods (45 minute lessons) twice a week totaling 540 minutes. Participants taught two soccer
seasons and one basketball Sport Education season. Table 3.1 provides a general summary of the
layout for each Sport Education season.
Before the start of the early field experience, an hour review of assessment in physical
education was provided to the preservice teachers. The review included three main components:
(a) knowledge and understanding of assessment, (b) examples of assessment implementation in a
Sport Education unit, and (c) assessment implementation requirements of the course. A review of
knowledge and understanding of assessment included: (a) performance based and traditional
assessment, (b) formal and informal assessments, (c) formative and summative assessment, (d)
assessment for and of learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998), and (e) the roles of assessment in
physical education (Lund & Kirk, 2010). Next, specific examples of performance based
assessments in Sport Education (Lund & Kirk, 2010; Oslin, Mitchell, & Griffin, 1998) were
provided and discussed. During the unit, preservice teachers were required to employ two formal
performance based assessments and one summative assessment. These requirements were
supported from the works of Lambert’s (2007) and Lund and Kirk’s (2010) recommendation to
employ at least one performance based assessment or checkpoint once a week or biweekly.
72
Additionally, each preservice teacher was also encouraged to utilize informal and traditional
forms of assessment as well.
Data Collection
Data collection in this study included eight qualitative data collection methods
comprising of interviews (formal, focus group, and informal), passive participation observation,
weekly journals, critical incidents, document collection, and video recordings of Sport Education
lessons.
Formal interviews. Over the length of the course, each student was formally interviewed
in person on two occasions at the university campus. Specifically, the first interview occurred
within the first week of the methods course prior to the start of the field experience and the
second occurred within a week of the methods course concluding. Each interview lasted
approximately 30 – 60 minutes and was audio-recorded. The interviews followed a semi-
structured format (Patton, 2002) which provided the flexibility to deviate from planned
questions. Interview topics included seeking to gain an understanding of preservice teachers’
background, assessment literacy, their values and beliefs, and how they might employ
assessment during a Sport Education unit. Example questions included, “What have you
experienced in your PETE program that is different from your experiences in physical
education?” and “What is the place of the student and the teacher when using assessment?” The
second formal interview sought to further understand their perceptions of the message system,
employment of assessment and instruction during the unit, values and beliefs, overall perception
of assessment throughout the unit, and any contextual barriers they may have faced. Example
questions included “How did you use assessment in the Sport Education unit during your field
73
experience?” and “What barriers did you face in your field experience when considering your
planning for and actual implementation?”
Focus group interview. Approximately half way during the semester, all participants
partook in a group interview that was audio-recorded which lasted approximately 60 minutes.
This focus group interview sought to understand preservice teachers’ perceptions of the planning
process of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in Sport Education as well as their thoughts on
using assessment in the schools, including possible facilitators and inhibitors. Example questions
included “How have you made instructional decisions for learning?” and “How has assessment
in Sport Education changed over the course of the unit?”
Informal interviews. Whenever the opportunity arose, preservice teachers were
informally interviewed either as an individual or in a group by the investigator with questions
pertaining to the teaching-learning process. These interviews occurred before and after their
assessment implementation, during class, after class, and during breaks. Formal notes on the
contents of these interviews were documented as soon as possible or at the conclusion of field
experience when no others were present.
Passive participant observation. Passive participant observation involved observing
students before, during, and after implementing assessments on campus and during their field
experience at local secondary schools. During observations, copious notes were taken describing
what occurs and the degree to which preservice teachers made instructional decisions on
assessment practices.
Weekly journal. The participants kept a weekly journal reflecting on their field
experience pertaining to the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment as well as
contextual barriers and successes of teaching. Example questions included, “How has this
74
clinical experience impacted the way you view the planning process?” “How were you able to
impact student learning during today’s lesson?” and “What evidence can you provide to support
your beliefs?” A total of six journal entries for each participant were collected at the end of the
season.
Critical incident reports. The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) was used to
collect recollections of significant daily events that may have contributed to better understanding
of the participant’s teaching. Critical incident reports were completed immediately after each
class period by each participant responding to the following question, “What was your most
meaningful experience today?” A total of 72 critical incident reports were completed by the
participants. This technique has been previously used to gain preservice teachers’ perceptions of
the most meaningful experience during physical education lessons (Rust & Sinelnikov, 2010).
Document collection. Document collection involved collecting and examining materials
which were utilized during the Sport Education season. Documents included unit plans, lesson
plans, two formal performance-based assessments, one summative assessment, as well as other
assessments the students may have used.
Video recordings of Sport Education lessons. All Sport Education lessons were
videotaped. During the lesson, the video camera was positioned in the corner of the gym or field
to allow an unobstructed view of all students and the teacher. The preservice teacher wore a
wireless microphone to have an audio record of instructions.
Data Analysis and Trustworthiness
Qualitative analysis included an approach grounded in inductive and deductive analysis
(Patton, 2015). The analysis process performed was mostly deductive; however an inductive
approach remained when examining differences among participants. The preliminary phase of
75
analysis included open, axial, and final coding where the researcher created an emergent
thematic structure while reading the transcripts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Once one-third of the
transcripts were read for general themes, a codebook was created. To test the codebook, it was
piloted on one-third of the previously uncoded data (Patton, 2015) and appropriate adjustments
were made (Patton, 2015). A finalized codebook was then utilized to analyze the remainder of
the data in its totality and themes were generated.
Data trustworthiness was ensured through data triangulation, peer debriefing, negative
case analysis, member checking, and an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data triangulation
was performed through cross verification from multiple data sources including interviews,
observations and field notes, weekly journal, critical incidents, and document analysis. A peer
debriefer, not involved in the study, met with the researcher to hold an impartial view of the
study to support the credibility of the analysis process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Through
negative case analysis, discussions were held to discuss data that dispute the themes.
Additionally, over the course of the study, an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was utilized to
maintain transparency in the research process by documenting steps taken to trace and determine
the logic behind the findings.
Fidelity of Sport Education Seasons
To maintain fidelity for non-negotiable features including procedures for organizing
content, task structures, and the sequencing of learning activities (Hastie & Casey, 2014) of the
Sport Education season, video recordings of the lessons were analyzed through the use a 23 point
checklist (Sinelnikov, 2009) adopted from a 19 point checklist developed by Ko and colleagues
(2006). Before conducting analysis of the research questions, the Sport Education specific
teacher pedagogical behaviors displayed during the unit were identified. The results of the
76
fidelity check confirmed high levels of fidelity for each Sport Education season (see Table 3.2).
Analysis of video demonstrated that each preservice teacher displayed the greater majority of
hallmark specific teacher pedagogical behaviors according to the Sport Education model
benchmarks instrument (Sinelnikov, 2009).
Results
Three themes generated during analysis were identified as: (a) the Sport Education model
and informal assessment were driving forces of instructional decisions; (b) the structure of Sport
Education was a driving force of formal assessment; and (c) high assessment value but low
literacy.
The Sport Education model and informal assessment were driving forces of instructional
decisions
Results of the study demonstrated two main driving forces in how the preservice teachers
in this study made instructional decisions. Specifically, instructional decisions were guided by
the structure and the phases of Sport Education model and informal assessment. These
instructional decisions included, preservice teacher’s attempts at aligning assessment with Sport
Education model outcomes, feeling pressure to progress through Sport Education phases, using
informal assessment to guide teaching modifications, and validating student learning through
informal assessment practices.
Aligning assessment with Sport Education outcomes. For preservice teachers in this
study, the structure and features of the Sport Education model were the main driving source of
instructional decisions. The preservice teachers identified curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment
in conjunction with one another prior to the start of the unit and continued to make decisions
towards meeting the Sport Education features as the unit progressed. For example, Zak explained
how his design of assessment changed along with the Sport Education model, “when doing a
77
Sport Education unit you have to align your assessments for that unit and figure out, do we do
them when they officiate, or as coaches…they all need to align in order to be successful.” (Zak,
F1) Adding to this perspective, Gabbi suggested that her focus of assessment in Sport Education
was influenced when she considered what she wanted her students to learn over the course of the
unit. “The progression [of Sport Education] does that… at the beginning you are teaching new
skills so they can peer assess or self-assess so when you move to learning the rules you can
assess there to see if they actually know.” (FG) Others had similar feelings when planning for
which assessments to help meet the desired outcomes of Sport Education in mindful ways. For
example, Jae suggested that he chose to use an affective outcome because it “talked about
sportsmanship things you had to do at the end of the game while that's important, and what is fair
play.” (F2) Further, others explained how using assessment in their planning provided a message
to the students about what was important, “We chose assessments to line up with Sport
Education unit, and really wanted to make sure students were clear with objectives and at an
intentional, specific time.” (Griffin, F1) For example, the sequence of assessment would include
“doing self-assessment first of the rules, then the peer assessment promoting fair play, then
teacher observation of their skills and fair play.” (Tryston, F2)
Feeling pressure to progress through Sport Education phases. Over the course of the
unit, the preservice teachers found themselves making more instructional decisions instead of
shifting the responsibility to the students. Zak suggested that time was a major constraint, “You
have to have a set plan. You know you need to be moved by this the stage because of time.” (F1)
Although valuing assessment in the model, most participants continued to feel pressure to move
through the phases of the season and did not use formal assessment data to inform instructional
changes. When asked what assessment afforded him in the model, Al replied, “Seeing where the
78
kids were at within the lesson…but there was really no room, no turning back with strict certain
amount of lesson.” (F2) Worryingly, some preservice teachers prioritized the progression of the
model and moving on in the season over promotion of student learning. Jae suggested he didn’t
utilize his assessment to alter his plans because, “Sport Education is already progressive. It's kind
of like a timeline, and you have to move forward really pretty much whether they have it or
not… if you missed it then you just missed it… it has to move on.” (F2) When asked whether he
continued to teach during formal competition, Zak replied that he would, “Let them go because
at that point the coaches should be coaching…The pre-season is kind of when you are helping
that coach. Like hey, you need to do this but then you step back when it’s season play.” (F2)
Albeit feeling pressure to move along, Zak also understood the importance of helping students
learn, “I felt pressure to get to the next level…but you need to take your time especially in that
beginning and emphasize expectations before you start trying to jump to it the next phase.” (F2)
To this end, others felt that if they had more time, they would be able to utilize assessment in the
model more effectively. During his weekly journal reflection, Al said,
“It would have been nice to have more time for training camp to improve even more in
skills, tactics, and strategies, another lesson or two for the regular season, a double
elimination playoff, an entire extra lesson to really teach students their roles to double
down on responsibility within each role, and lastly to take an entire lesson during the
middle of the season to give a quality assessment that may have to take up an entire
lesson. For example, a checklist where you, the teacher, take one team at a time off to the
side and have them run through a skill drills.”
79
Similarly, Gabbi pointed out a need to progress through season phases and finish with a
culminating event, “We just had to keep pushing because of the unit, we had to be able to get to
the World Cup game, we had so many little things that we had set up, it was hard.” (F2)
Informal assessment guided teaching modifications. Most preservice teachers were
in agreement that the use of formal assessment did not impact their curriculum planning and
instead they relied on informal assessment to make adjustments to their daily lessons. For
instance, Al suggested that informal assessment influenced, “how we started a lesson, there are
certain things you see that you can hammer in during the intro of a lesson.” (F2) Similarly,
Tryston reflected on using informal assessment to repeat a lesson, “due to the students not fully
grasping the rules of basketball, we did the same lesson again…you could just tell that the
students were a lot more active in calling violations today…I could tell by their reaction.” (FG)
Griffin discussed being able to see what he wanted to work on during a lesson and make
adjustments “I guess kind of walked around seeing like pair work. If they're passing a basketball,
and if you can clearly see that they can't receive it or throw it, then you definitely should step in.”
(F1) Additionally, Gabbi discussed how utilizing informal assessment informed her instructional
decisions made during the lesson,
“From my first semester not having an assessment and then doing it now, it completely
changes how you write a lesson; you know what the kids have to do. You know what you
can do to help them more. So implementing it, it's saved me...before I never thought
about informally assessing them. I would just be like, well, that kid doesn't know what
he's doing and I'd focus on him. But now, I have a broad spectrum of all the kids.” (F2)
80
Furthermore, Gabbi suggested that utilizing informal assessment also helped inform her
decisions to utilize formal assessment, “Informal [assessment] helped us …to create the formal,
because we [identified] where the kids are struggling, so we should move towards this.” (F2)
Validating student learning through informal assessment. All preservice teachers
discussed informal assessment as a legitimate means for validating student learning. Al
commented, “I definitely thought they and their knowledge improved. You know, they definitely
were like mosh pits, but eventually they learned, and spread out, and got open for pass.” (F2) For
Tryston, on the other hand, seeing the students act in autonomous ways informally provided him
validation that his students were learning, “The officials are doing much better. One thing that
was awesome is the fact that I do not even have to help them with the calls anymore. They know
the signals and the calls very well.” (CI) Similarly, Zak discussed a previous Sport Education
experience in which informal observation validated him as a teacher, “Yeah you can just see
it...like when we did Sport Ed for track and we had the relay race and they nailed it…it was just
perfect…if they can do that, it kind of validates what you've been doing.” (F1) This was a
common occurrence where the preservice teachers relied on previous field experiences and
placed minimal importance on formal assessment. For example, Jae stated, “I didn’t have 50
kids, I was responsible for ten kids. If somebody didn't get it, it was clear, I could see all at the
same time… all my students could go back and help one student learn and understand.” (F2)
However, in multiple instances, the preservice teachers came to realize that although they
legitimized learning through informal assessment, there may be a need for formal assessment in
practice. For example, Jae said, “There was a time probably, mid to early on that I did not know
where they were in their learning…I was kind of losing it a little bit” and that some students
“were in over their heads; they thought they knew a lot and they didn’t know anything,” (F2) but
81
without a formal assessment the extent of student knowledge and skill were difficult to ascertain.
Similarly, Gabbi suggested that the idea of formal assessment provided a foundation of
intentional teaching toward learning, “If you’re not formally assessing, you are just like watching
your kids as you are instructing or they are doing something… it just a motion you are constantly
going through it.” (F2) To this end, Zak suggested that using both formal and informal
assessment provided him with an understanding of where his students’ progress and levels of
improvement, “I think I did have a good idea about it with all the assessments I did and really
watching individual teams, you know, go through their daily procedures. I definitely saw a lot of
growth with a lot of students.” (F2)
The structure of Sport Education was a driving force of formal assessment
The use of the Sport Education model during the field experience afforded many
opportunities to utilize formal assessment. In addition, the Sport Education model facilitated
opportunities to utilize assessment for learning; however the preservice teachers often valued
formal assessment of learning towards evaluative capacities.
Sport Education promoted formal assessment opportunities. Analysis of data in
this study suggested that formal assessment was utilized in and driven by the Sport Education
model. This was particularly evidenced by the many ways the preservice teachers utilized it in
different capacities towards alignment with model outcomes. For example, Zak spoke to many
different opportunities he was afforded by the structure of the model to implement assessment, “I
think you can use a lot of different assessments. I definitely like the checklist - for the coach, for
the officials, and cognitive tests about the rules.” (F1) Similarly, Jae rationalized using
assessment based on Sport Education outcomes saying, “psychomotor assessment was a
checklist, we're looking at whether or not the students used the ‘how-to’ words that we taught
82
them, the skills cues that we taught them” and also “the second one was cognitive, we were
looking to see if we could let them kind of play and officiate themselves.” (F2)
Additionally, some of the preservice teachers utilized formal assessment to assist with
achieving student outcomes relative to Sport Education itself and with different objectives based
on phases of the season. Al said that he used different formal assessment in each season phase
saying, “Self-assessment was used to help pick the teams, a rules assessment to help initiate the
rules into preseason started and as the training camp was going, and officiating probably towards
the end of preseason.” (F2) Similarly, Griffin stated that, “For the end of the training camp we
want them to know the concept of the court so that they could at least play a little bit in the
preseason with student peer observation.” (F2) With this in mind, Gabbi also felt strongly that
the assessments helped the students’ progress through the model and provided additional time for
her to attend to other tasks, “you can put more emphasis on assessment in [Sport Education] to
help you step back... it is easier to bring a few aside because you’re not set on watching every kid
doing everything right, you can do other things.” (F2)
Formal assessment for learning was built into Sport Education. Many times over the
course of the unit, the preservice teachers utilized assessment for learning to ensure students
were meeting outcomes such as playing fairly and officiating well. All Sport Education seasons
in this study included fair play points as a part of record keeping procedures and statistician
forms included descriptors of fair play behaviors that student-officials observed and awarded fair
play points to teams based on their observations. In addition, teams assessed how well they
thought the duty team officiated by filling out a separate form. Most preservice teachers however
did not recognize these forms as an assessment but instead considered their purpose in promoting
accountability. Describing these forms Jae said, “I wouldn't say, a peer assessment but to see if
83
they can look at what's happening in the game. Sort of you know, know the rules, the score...”
(F2) To this end, Tryston suggested that he used a peer evaluation form, and “it helped students
on court have a role and look for different things.” (F2) When asked why he didn’t recognize a
fair play form as a form of assessment, he suggested that he thought the form “really help
[students] focus on officiating and get really good at it.” (F2) Others suggested that such
assessment helped with management issues, “because everyone had something to do when you're
playing officiating or observing, so that really helped, because there they were not just sitting on
the sideline, they were actively involved.” (F2)
For many preservice teachers, the lack of recognition of assessment for learning was
attributed to participants considering such assessment being an integral part of the Sport
Education model. For example, Al didn’t consider students using checklist for fair play as an
assessment because he just “thought it was an important aspect in Sport Education.” (F2)
Similarly, Griffin stated that, “I guess we kind of take it for granted like that's just one of the
things [assessment] we did, instead of actually using it as our assessment” and “it is my thing for
the Sport Ed unit... So kind of getting into it you kind of lose... you take it for granted.”
(F2) Likewise, Gabbi thought of the fair play form as “a little reminder” that is “already built in
that they are required to do, they’re an official…they're supposed to do it.” (F2) Thus,
assessment for some participants was viewed as having additional procedures to those that have
been already embedded within the structure of Sport Education, and alternatively if these
procedures were already planned as part of the season, they were not viewed as assessment.
On the other hand, however, one participant recognized the value of using assessment
for learning towards meeting the Sport Education outcomes by utilizing it during the unit. For
example, Zak thought that assessment,
84
“Gets them involved…some students might really like that aspect of assessing with the
Sport Education model, they like that part of assessing other students but I think
ultimately it lets them see… it will help them when they get assessed because they're
seeing you know the different steps they have to meet. So when they're assessing
somebody then it's their turn to go. They're like OK, I already did this assessment, I know
I need to do this, it makes them understand the content more.” (F1)
Additionally, he understand that utilizing it for learning promoted importance with his students,
“There was a need for [sportsmanship]…and I thought OK, I really want to make this a formal
assessment. I think students take it more serious…like oh, this is something that we need to pay
attention to…this is important obviously.” (F2)
Preservice teachers prioritized assessment of learning. Although most of the
preservice teachers found value in assessment as learning tools, when asked about what
assessment afforded them, they often responded to assessment of learning or as evaluation. This
was particularly true when most participants still referred to it as a test. Comments like, “I used a
teacher assessment, it was like a test, and I gave them questions to answer” and “we'd spent so
much time practicing and learning the physical skills of soccer that I was like, we have to test it,
we haven't spent as much time on anything else to test that… we have to test this” were fairly
prominent in data. (Jae, F2) Interestingly, the preservice teachers did not use these results of
assessment to inform their future instruction but instead used it to validate their teaching as an
outcome. “Using the assessment, gives you validation, it is like they [students] are getting this.”
(Zak, F1) When asked why he didn’t think of fair play as an assessment, he responded with,
“It wouldn't have been good feedback for me because I was more interested in, like; do they
know what out of bounds is? Do they know who gets the ball if it goes out of bounds?” (Jae, F2)
85
Although training regarding assessment for and of learning was provided, when asked
how they saw assessment in relation to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, there were
instances when some preservice teachers discussed assessment as something that happens at the
end. For example, Tryston’s comment, “I see assessment as evaluation more than learning” was
enigmatic of this sentiment. (F2) Further, Al shared that he saw them working together but in a
linear pathway of curriculum, then pedagogy, then assessment suggesting, “I definitely see them
working together, they definitely clearly go in that order, that exact order… you take your time,
you plan everything, go through the lesson, and then you assess.” (F2) Griffin, however, had a
slightly different view of the triad. For him, the relationship between the three includes models-
based practice and it was like a ladder, “I think they fit like a ladder. If you're doing the model,
you're going to have to teach it right…the assessment could be the scores after the games or the
fair play points.” (F1)
Although mostly valuing assessment as evaluation, at least one preservice teacher also
recognized assessment for learning as being of particular importance. Zak said, “So for
assessment, they're kind of internalizing it and really grasping and understanding it. Like, OK, if
I do this - it can affect this. Not just for a grade, to get them to think outside the box.” (Zak, F2)
High assessment value but low literacy
Preservice teachers stated that they valued assessment as a part of the teaching-
learning process but lacked assessment literacy during practice. In addition, although participants
utilized assessment in the Sport Education model, they struggled to use it in developmentally
appropriate ways and encountered many technical aspects which influenced their view on
assessment.
86
Valuing assessment in the teaching-learning process. The preservice teachers’
value of assessment towards learning and instruction in the teaching-learning process was
encouraging prior to teaching the unit. For Zak, he believed the field experience would provide
him with an opportunity to practice using assessment and understood its value, “I think this is a
good opportunity for us to really have a full class to try to get these assessments and just
understanding when to assess your time as to how this going to affect our game play or
competition.” (F1) Likewise, Tryston explained how he saw assessment in the teaching-learning
process, “You need to know where your students are before you begin to teach them, assess
along the way to see how much they are learning, and then assess once the unit is done to figure
out how much they learned.” (F1)
To this end, many spoke about how they could use formal assessment and provide
rationales to use assessment to inform instruction. For example, Jae felt that formal assessment
“afforded the opportunity for us to understand if what you're doing is working or if you need to
change” (F2) and he felt that teaching was pointless without it since “you have to assess to make
sure you know they’re learning what you taught.” (F1) Similarly, Al believed that data he
receives from assessment would inform his lessons since “what you get from your assessment
creates your next objectives and most likely affects the next in the future.” (F1)
Further, the preservice teachers discussed formal assessment as important to noticing all
students and their learning as “it gives the students that you may pass over during everyday class
to see where they're at more opportunities.” (Al, F1) Similarly, Griffin stated that assessment is
needed because “if there’s not assessment…you’re never really going to do great” and “if there
are little roadblocks ahead then it will be easier for the student to understand and for the teacher
87
to be able to help with what they need.” (F1) Further, Zak supported this notion by saying that
“the role of assessment is great because it lets everyone know where everyone is.” (F2)
Additionally, the degree to which the preservice teachers believed they had the skills
necessary to implement formal assessment during their field experience was drawn from
previous experiences in an assessment course for physical education. Al suggested that he felt
“good about it after the [assessment] course.” (F1) For Gabbi she believed, “now I know what
works and doesn’t. What I was doing, the students were like, I don't want to do this, and some of
them wouldn't even do that….So I think that being stressed out too through that class helped.”
(F1) On the other hand, Zak suggested that although previously having the class and now feeling
better, “I didn’t quite understand it at the moment but I think we have the tools and we've been
taught pretty well how to implement these from taking that class and implementing them” and “I
think in the past, I really tried to implement just try to get it done. I really just want to focus on
the best way, do it right...and how does it really affect the students?” (F1)
Struggling to use assessment in developmentally appropriate ways. It seems
however, that although the preservice teachers valued assessment, most struggled to use it in
developmentally appropriate ways. For all of the participants, they believed they set the bar too
high when determining criteria for the elementary students. Gabbi said, “I think I set it high at
first, because for Sport Education I was thinking what it was like in middle school and not like
third graders doing it.” (F2) When creating fair play benchmarks, Griffin used criteria from his
previous Sport Education experiences at the middle school. Al felt that “not having ever taught
elementary students in Sport Education before, our original speculation was for them to seriously
take on the responsibility that a middle school student would, however we adapted quickly
88
realizing that this was not the case.” (WJ) Additionally, Zak suggested that his developmental
level for criteria he selected was “definitely too high.” (F2)
In addition to selecting appropriate criteria to teach and assess, the preservice teachers
struggled with developmentally appropriate ways to implement assessment that was aligned with
outcomes. Students “have no prior knowledge, so giving them a task sheet like one of our fifth
graders to be the coach for a team and what court to go on, it’s not going to happen.” (Griffin,
FG) Further, Zak voiced that he expected the students to be able to know and perform duty and
team roles noting, “I think I expected them to understand what a warm up leader was. Instead,
you need to probably show them what leaders do this.” (F2) Additionally, Al realized that he
needed to approach his assessments differently since elementary students “are just tough, you
have to go slow” and “considering the students were only in third grade, I should have walked
through the self-assessment with them one question at a time.” (FG) Others however, just felt
that assessment tools weren’t appropriate for elementary students. Griffin noted, “I don’t think a
formal cognitive assessment is a good tool to gauge students’ knowledge until middle school. All
the kids knew yet when we gave them a few questions to write, they had no idea.” (WJ)
Navigating technical aspects of using assessment. The degree to which the preservice
teachers were able to implement formal assessment in the schools was largely based on technical
aspects which signified a lack of assessment literacy. Technical aspects and concerns of using
assessment included large number of students, lack of time during lessons, and managing the
assessment implementation. At times the preservice teachers did not feel it was realistic to assess
with large numbers and had limited teachers to observe. Jae felt that assessment was difficult to
use in Sport Education because “I think it's kind of a constraint with gameplay, it's hard to do
that I feel like in Sport Education, with one teacher with both officiating and teamwork.” (F1)
89
Similarly, Al felt that “between knowing what you had to get done and a certain amount of
lessons and time for class…maybe if you have two teachers…definitely one teacher assesses,
one teacher teaches.” (F2) Zak, however, felt confident in his ability to make adjustments and
utilize assessment in practical ways even with large number of students in class noting, “It’s like
how do I get 60 kids assessed? Well, you can just have 30 other kids assess 30 other kids.” (F1)
For most finding a time to use assessment where it was practical and didn’t take up time
was difficult. Gabbi suggested allocating a specific time for assessment within the lesson was
difficult to “make sure that I put the time within the lesson to do the assessment.” (F1) Jae
rationalized using assessment at a time of convenience as students “come into the gym and sit in
their lines… So we just had them take it [tests] when they were there.” (F1) Furthermore, he
lamented the lack of available time for assessment saying that “it was probably more of a
reflective thing; because by the time we had given the assessments or taught the lesson, it was
kind of time to either go in or it's too late to change.” (F2)
Tryston also believed that he didn’t have enough time to use assessment the way he
wanted to, stating that, “I am not sure I had enough time to complete the assessment and get the
data I would like to have.” (WJ) He also suggested that he wasn’t getting the results he wanted
because it was rushed, “The kids aren't learning the material because it's so rushed, so the
assessments are just another thing for them to do…they're not reflecting on them...they don't
have the comprehension to reflect on their assessment.” (FG) Similarly, Gabbi suggested she
didn’t use the data to inform instruction due to time, “after we did the assessment, we haven't
even given anything back on that assessment because there is not time…we can do informal
assessment all day and I know where my kids are at.” (FG) Al also believed that “we can’t take a
lesson out of 12 to assess” and “we only have about five minutes” to do the assessment, so “they
90
aren’t as good as they could be.” (FG) In one case however, Zak reflected on the value of
working through an assessment during class to explain an assessment. “I feel like I would try to
rush through it because of time, so maybe just it’s okay to take time to assess. Even if it cuts into
game play and takes more time.” (F2)
In addition, several preservice teachers explained the concerns of navigating the use of
assessment in the school. “Having access to printing copies for everybody...Just like little things
like that…those are just real life. You know, having each kid with a pencil and a pencil when
they come in.” (Jae, F1) Gabbi suggested that in using formal assessment she would do it
differently next time because “we would always be short on a pencil or there would ever be
enough. It’s like four kids would take the pens. I started with 32 pencils and I have 12 now…it’s
hard.” (F2)
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore how preservice teachers understand and enact
the message system (assessment, pedagogy, and curriculum) while employing the Sport
Education model in an early field experience. In this case, particular interest was placed on how
preservice teachers made instructional decisions related to models-based practice, how and to
what degree assessment practices were driven by the model, and how their understanding and
beliefs of assessment correspond with their practices. The theoretical framework for this
discussion is based on the assessment literacy framework presented by Hay and Penney (2013)
consisting of four interrelated components of assessment including comprehension, application,
interpretation, and critical engagement. While the discussion addresses each component
independently, there is an inevitable interchange due to the dynamic relationship between the
components.
91
Comprehension
Stemming from the research questions of (a) how preservice teachers make instructional
decisions related to models based practice, (b) how and to what degree assessment practices are
driven by the model, the preservice teachers’ comprehension of assessment is largely explained
by their understanding of assessment in the teaching-learning process. Assessment
comprehension is described as understanding of what assessment means, the purposes of
assessment, assessment tools, and how it contributes to student learning (DinanThompson &
Penney, 2015). Prior to the field experience, the preservice teachers in this study demonstrated
adequate knowledge of assessment (Lorente-Catalán & Kirk, 2016) and placed a high value
towards utilizing it for evaluation, learning, accountability, and for documentation. Furthermore,
the preservice teachers’ comprehension of Sport Education features and outcomes served as a
driving force to promote alignment between curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. This finding
is promising as the preservice teachers understood the outcomes of the model and were able to
rationalize the type of formal assessment employed within the model. Similar to previous
research (Curtner-Smith & Sofo, 2004), the preservice teachers’ prior and repetitive experiences
practicing the Sport Education model throughout their PETE program may have contributed to
their ability to engage in the teaching-learning process productively. However, although
participants’ comprehension of model outcomes and its alignment with assessment were evident,
there were a few concerns of their understanding of assessment once carried out in practice.
First, despite employing formal assessment tools, most of the participants in this study
prioritized assessments use as an evaluative measure. Additionally, and of a particular concern,
was this study’s finding that preservice teachers failed to analyze the data, provide feedback to
students or use data to inform instruction. This finding demonstrated limited levels of
92
comprehension by participants regarding the potential of assessment and provided legitimate
concerns about critical engagement of some participants with such assessment. The limited
nature of data interpretation and lack of analysis of conducted assessment was largely attributed
by participants to a lack of class time, large class sizes, and the need to get through the model.
Out of these barriers, a lack of class time has been previously identified as a constraint to quality
assessment (Goc Karp & Woods, 2008; Lund & Veal).
The finding of this study empirically supports previously theorized notion that Sport
Education can provide a foundation and structure which can facilitate and promote the use of
assessment practices (Siedentop, 2009; Starck, 2017). Specifically, in this study the preservice
teachers predominately utilized and discussed assessment for evaluative purposes. Interestingly,
however, participants employed assessment for learning during Sport Education season, but most
failed to recognize it as such. This brings up an interesting conception of their understanding of
assessment and its neat alignment with the Sport Education model. To this end, given preservice
teachers’ lack of recognition of using assessment for learning and its natural embeddedness in
the model, the discussions between the teachers and the students was limited during practice.
Moreover, similar to inservice teachers’ assessment literacy (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015)
preservice teachers’ comprehension of assessment did not always allude to assessment practices
or application during the implementation of Sport Education.
Application
The research question of how preservice teachers’ understanding and beliefs of
assessment corresponded with their practices was explored upon their application and
interpretation of assessment while employing the Sport Education model. Application is
described as the “exploration of teachers’ enactment of assessment to identify practices,
93
processes, and contributions to student learning provided contextual richness to the data”
(DinanThompson & Penney, 2015, p. 492). While the preservice teachers were able to align
assessment with their curriculum and pedagogical practices during the unit, their application of
how the assessment tools were used were impacted by their comprehension of assessment and
the contextual realities of the school.
Similar to findings of previous research that pointed challenges of the teacher candidates
in identifying criteria to assess on (Goc Karp & Woods, 2008; Lund & Veal, 2008), the
preservice teachers in this study struggled to use assessment in developmentally appropriate
ways despite feeling confident in their ability to employ assessment. Notably, preservice teachers
experienced particular difficulties when selecting criteria levels to assess on and when employing
an age appropriate assessment. Furthermore, since the preservice teacher’s comprehension of
assessment in alignment with the message system was limited, the application of assessment for
some preservice teachers was superficial. In addition, many preservice teachers attributed their
limited use of assessment to inform future instruction was attributed to the need to get through
the model. However, this finding is in contrast with a tenet of Sport Education of allowing
extended time for instruction in order to achieve its objectives (Siedentop et al., 2011). Perhaps,
a recommendation of the appropriateness of a 12-lesson season in elementary schools may need
to be revisited.
Scholars have argued that assessment is critical to models which are student centered
(Biggs, 1999; Brown & Glasner, 1999), however the lack of comprehension and application of
student centered assessment approaches may be explained through their persisted comprehension
of assessment in traditional ways (Lund & Kirk, 2010). This notion is supported by current study
whereby results indicate a high priority placed by preservice teachers on getting through the
94
model as planned versus adjusting and promoting student learning based on assessment data.
Additionally, some preservice teachers lacked comprehension towards alternative assessment
embedded in the structure of Sport Education and were not able to identify it during teaching,
which is also emblematic of traditional teaching during which some preservice teachers are not
always able to identify assessment for learning during a unit (Lorente-Catalán & Kirk, 2016).
Furthermore, findings of this study supported previous research (Penney et al., 2009), and
demonstrated that most preservice teachers regard assessment as something “extra” within
models-based practice and view it as an isolated event. Moreover, although assessment was
embedded into instruction, most preservice teachers did not interpret the data to engage in its
potential and did not see assessment as ongoing, and integrated with instruction, where “we
cannot tell where instruction ends and assessment begins” (Lambert, 1999, p. 12).
Interpretation
Given preservice teachers’ knowledge of Sport Education outcomes and application of a
number of formal assessment tools during the unit, all but one participant did not interpret the
data after application. Interpretation of assessment included understanding how teachers make
decisions regarding standards set based on assessment tools (DinanThompson & Penney, 2015).
The results of the study demonstrated that most preservice teachers did not analyze data, provide
student feedback, or make instructional decisions toward alignment of the message system
(Penney et al., 2009). Although some progress has been seemingly made toward utilization of
alternative assessment practice, preservice teachers’ approach toward assessment was not
regular, integral, widespread, and educationally productive (López-Pastor et al., 2013). This
critical finding demonstrates most preservice teachers’ inability to engage with assessment as a
part of the teaching-learning process, to utilize assessment to provide feedback to students, and
95
to embed assessment to improve learning and to inform future instruction. Such a finding lends
credence to Goc Karp and Woods’ (2008) argument for creating intentional and authentic
assessment opportunities in teacher preparation programs, if changes in teachers’ beliefs and
understanding are to be made (Starck, Richards, & O’Neil, 2018).
Promisingly however, the preservice teachers seemed to make instructional decisions
aligned with their objectives by providing feedback based on informal observation. However, the
scope to which their instruction was modified was limited toward understanding student learning
and equity among each child. Furthermore, the preservice teachers felt validated when they
believed their students were learning, a finding that has been previously reported in models-
based research (Sinelnikov, 2009), but often didn’t know what each child was learning. These
results might be partially explained by the added layer of complexity and multi-dimensionality
that model-based practice provides (Lund & Veal, 2008; Sinelnikov, 2015) in which preservice
teachers need to learn to assess effectively based on all instructional goals. Such complexity and
multi-dimensionality of student centered models-based practice plays a role in preservice
teachers’ difficulties in comprehension, application, and interpretation of assessment in Sport
Education. Given the preservice teachers extended experiences with Sport Education in this
study and the embeddedness of formal assessment, attention should be drawn to the uses of
assessment, its role in promoting student learning, and engagement with students.
Critical Engagement
Given the value that is placed on information which is assessed (Hay & Penney,
2013), a discussion and engagement with students and assessment is necessary. Critical
engagement includes asking questions about what assessment is communicating, to whom it is
communicated and what the value is toward both student learning and promoting accountability
96
(DinanThompson & Penney, 2015). Results of this study revealed that often preservice teachers
employed assessment tools and did not provide feedback or engage in discussions with students
about what it meant. Specifically in Sport Education, this may present a particular concern given
the importance placed on formal competition and record keeping (Siedentop et al., 2011). For
example, if a form of assessment is used for record keeping (i.e., officials assessing players’ fair
play), there must be a public discussion and critical engagement with the results of such
assessment. A teacher would need to clearly delineate assessment’s purpose and criteria as well
as use developmentally and age appropriate assessments to ensure educative nature of
assessment for learning in addition to evaluation of learning.
Implications
The significance of this study is in the necessity to engage students in realistic
experiences where assessment is a part of the teaching-learning process when first entering a
PETE program (Curtner-Smith & Sofo, 2004). Further, given the benefit that Sport Education
model provides for students to be engaged in their own learning (Siedentop et al., 2011), this
model provides a structure which generally promotes the use of assessment as an authentic part
of the teaching-learning process. However, given the lack of experience and understanding of
assessment, preservice teachers needed opportunities to explore the components of Sport
Education and utilize them to interpret and inform future instructions with critical engagement
(Starck et al., 2018). One way to do this might be through experiencing the model first hand prior
to teaching it (Curtner-Smith, Hastie, & Kinchin, 2008; Sinelnikov, 2009).
Although the findings of this study demonstrated instances of appropriate use of
assessment in Sport Education by preservice teachers, the barriers to assessment included limited
time allotted for the season in field experiences. Although minimal recommended season length
97
of Sport Education model in elementary school is 10-12 lessons (Siedentop et al., 2011) the
results of the study support the recommendation to extend the length of the season in the
elementary school for preservice teachers, especially if quality assessment is desired. This
recommendation is especially relevant considering previous research indicating preservice
teachers’ tendency to prioritize model structure over priority of the model over student learning
in models-based practice (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997; McNeill, Fry, Wright, Tan, Tan, &
Schempp, 2004; Vollmer & Curtner-Smith, 2016).
The study findings suggested that although the preservice teachers had experiences with
assessment in physical education and instruction, they still reverted to traditional mindset (Lund
& Kirk, 2010) where assessment was not prioritized. Results also support Goc Karp and Wood's
(2008) call for preservice teachers to have longer interventions in which they are able to
experiment with new ideas and practice along with discourse and theory to bring about change
(Doolittle, Dodds, & Placek, 1993) towards understanding of assessment as a necessary part of
teaching. Furthermore, since traditional views of instruction and assessment include teacher
control, preservice teachers need to have carefully structured and intentionally designed
experiences where they are able to utilize assessment effectively in student center models
(Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008; Starck et al., 2018) and to practice using assessment with the
intention of focusing on student learning versus teacher concerns (Hogan, Rabinowitz, & Craven
III, 2003).
While this is the first study that investigated preservice teachers’ use of assessment
within Sport Education during field experiences, future research avenues include exploring the
use of assessment across spectrum of models-based practice and how assessment is understood
and practiced by preservice teachers across a teacher education program. To this end, further
98
understanding how preservice teachers understand the teaching-learning process in different
pedagogical models needs to be examined. Finally, future research should aim to explore what
happens to well intention practices once the preservice teachers leave the university setting and
enter into teaching field.
99
References
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Blankenship, B. T., & Coleman, M. M. (2009). An examination of "wash out" and workplace
conditions of beginning physical education teachers. Physical Educator, 66(2), 97-111.
Braga, L., & Liversedge, P. (2017). Challenges and facilitators to the implementation of a sport
education season: The voices of teacher candidates. Physical Educator, 74(1), 19-40.
Brown, G. T. (2004). Teachers' conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and
professional development. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
11(3), 301-318.
Brown, S., & Glasner, A. (1999). Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using
diverse approaches. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Calandra, B., Gurvitch, R., & Lund, J. (2008). An exploratory study of digital video editing as a
tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 137.
Capel, S. (2016). Value orientations of student physical education teachers learning to teach on
school-based initial teacher education courses in England. European Physical Education
Review, 22(2), 167-184.
Clarke, G., & Quill, M. (2003). Researching sport education in action: A case study. European
Physical Education Review, 9(3), 253-266.
Collier, D. (2011). Increasing the value of physical education: The role of assessment. The
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(7), 38.
Curtner-Smith, M., & Sofo, S. (2004). Preservice teachers' conceptions of teaching within sport
education and multi-activity units. Sport, Education and Society, 9(3), 347-377.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2017). Acculturation, recruitment, and the development of orientations. In
K. A. R. Richards & K. L. Gauault (Eds.), Teacher socialization in physical education:
New perspectives. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
100
Curtner-Smith, M. D., Hastie, P. A., & Kinchin, G. D. (2008). Influence of occupational
socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport,
Education and Society, 13(1), 97-117.
Desrosiers, P., Genet-Volet, Y., & Godbout, P. (1997). Teachers’ assessment practices viewed
through the instruments used in physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 16(2), 211-228.
DinanThompson, M. (2013). Claiming ‘educative outcomes’ in HPE: The potential for
‘pedagogic action’. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 4(2),
127-142.
DinanThompson, M., & Penney, D. (2015). Assessment literacy in primary physical education.
European Physical Education Review, 21(4), 485-503. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15584087
Doolittle, S. A., Dodds, P., & Placek, J. H. (1993). Persistence of beliefs about teaching during
formal training of preservice teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12(4),
355-365.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin, 51(4), 327.
Goc Karp, G., & Woods, M. L. (2008). Preservice teachers' perceptions about assessment and its
implementation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(3), 327-346.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sports concepts and skills: A
tactical games approach. United Kingdom: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2011). Toward the development of a
pedagogical model for health-based physical education. Quest, 63(3), 321-338.
Hastie, P. A., & Casey, A. (2014). Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy:
A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(3), 422-
431.
Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2013). Assessment in physical education: A sociocultural perspective.
New York: Routledge.
Hogan, T., Rabinowitz, M., & Craven III, J. A. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences
from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247.
Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 973-986.
Ko, B., Wallhead, T., & Ward, P. (2006). Chapter 4: Professional development workshops—
what do teachers learn and use? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25(4), 397-
412.
101
Lambert, L. T. (1999). Standards-based assessment of student learning: A comprehensive
approach. Reston, VA: NASPE Publications.
Lambert, L. T., & Lund, J. L. (2007). Standards-based assessment of student learning: A
comprehensive approach: Amer Alliance for Health Physical.
Lawson, H. A. (1983a). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: Entry
into schools, teachers’ role orientations, and longevity in teaching (part 2). Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 3(1), 3-15.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
López-Pastor, V. M., Kirk, D., Lorente-Catalán, E., MacPhail, A., & Macdonald, D. (2013).
Alternative assessment in physical education: A review of international literature. Sport,
Education and Society, 18(1), 57-76.
Lorente-Catalán, E., & Kirk, D. (2016). Student teachers’ understanding and application of
assessment for learning during a physical education teacher education course. European
Physical Education Review, 22(1), 65-81. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15590352
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lund, J. L., & Kirk, M. F. (2010). Performance-based assessment for middle and high school
physical education (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lund, J. L., & Veal, M. L. (2008). Chapter 4: Measuring pupil learning—how do student
teachers assess within instructional models? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
27(4), 487-511.
Matanin, M., & Tannehill, D. (1994). Assessment and grading in physical education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 13(4), 395-405.
McCaughtry, N., Sofo, S., Rovegno, I., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2004). Learning to teach sport
education: Misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance. European
Physical Education Review, 10(2), 135-155.
McNeill, M., Fry, J., Wright, S., Tan, W., Tan, K., & Schempp, P. (2004). ‘In the local context’:
Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education and Society,
9(1), 3-32.
Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Griffin, L. L. (1998). The game performance assessment
instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 17(2), 231-243.
102
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oasks,
CA: Sage.
Penney, D., Brooker, R., Hay, P., & Gillespie, L. (2009). Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment:
Three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education. Sport
Education and Society, 14(4), 421-442. doi: 10.1080/13573320903217125
Redelius, K., & Hay, P. (2009). Defining, acquiring and transacting cultural capital through
assessment in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 275-294.
Richards, K. A. R., & Gaudreault, K. (2017). Socialization into physical education: Learning
from the past and looking to the future. In K. A. R. Richards & K. Lux-Gaudreault (Eds.),
Teacher socialization in physical education: New perspectives (pp. 3-10). New York:
Taylor & Francis.
Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J., & Gaudreault, K. L. (2013). Understanding the realities of
school life: Recommendations for the preparation of physical education teachers. Quest,
65(4), 442-457.
Rust, R., & Sinelnikov, O. (2010). Practicum in a self-contained environment: Pre-service
teacher perceptions of teaching students with disabilities. Physical Educator, 67(1), 33.
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete guide to sport education.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siedentop, D. L. (2009). National plan for physical activity: education sector. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 6(s2), S168-S180.
Sinelnikov, O., & Hastie, P. (2017). The learning of pedagogical models in physical education:
the socialization perspective In K. A. R. Richard, & Lux-Gaudreault, K. (Ed.), Teacher
Socialization in Physical Educaiton: New Perspectives (pp. 130 - 143). London and New
York: Routledge.
Sinelnikov, O. A. (2009). Sport education for teachers: Professional development when
introducing a novel curriculum model. European Physical Education Review, 15(1), 91-
114.
Sinelnikov, O. A. (2015). The ecological paradigm as a theoretical framework for pedagogical
model examination. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 10(28), 3-4.
Sinelnikov, O. A., Hastie, P. A., & Prusak, K. A. (2007). Situational motivation during seasons
of Sport Education. The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education,
Recreation, Sport & Dance, 2(1), 43.
103
Society of Health and Physical Educators America. (2009). Appropriate Instructional Practices
Guidelines, K-12: A Side-by-Side Comparison [Press release]
Sofo, S., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2005). Development of preservice teachers' value orientations
and beliefs during a secondary methods course and early field experience. University of
Alabama.
Starck, J. R. (2017). Using assessment for learning in sport education. Strategies, 30(4), 51-53.
Stiggins, R. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(March), 534–539.
Stran, M., & Curtner-Smith, M. (2009). Influence of occupational socialization on two preservice
teachers’ interpretation and delivery of the sport education model. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 28(1), 38-53.
Tannehill, D., van der Mars, H., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Building effective physical education
programs. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Templin, T. J., & Schempp, P. G. (1989). Socialization into physical education: Learning to
teach. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B.
Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Vollmer, C. E., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2016). Influence of acculturation and professional
socialization on preservice teachers' interpretation and implementation of the teaching
fames for understanding model. Physical Educator, 73(1), 74.
Wood, T. M. (1996). Evaluation and testing: The road less traveled. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis
(Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction
(pp. 199-219). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgement
practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice, 17(1), 59–75.
104
Table 3.1
Sport Education Season Outline
Lesson Content Teacher’s role Students’ roles
1 Introduction
Rules to the games
Beginning skills assessment
Class leader Participant
2 Skill testing
Team Announcement
Present team lists Determine team roles
Decide on team name
3-4 Whole class skill instruction
Players learn duty team roles
Discuss roles
Discuss fair play
Participant, coach, player, learn
duty team roles
5-7 Preseason scrimmage
Players practice duty team roles
Referee advisor Coaches, players, continue learning
duty team roles
8-11 Formal Competition Program Manager Coaches, players, duty team roles
12 Championship games
Culminating Event
Program Manager
Master of ceremonies
Coaches, players, duty team roles
105
Table 3.2
Sport Education Fidelity Check
The Benchmark Element T Jae Zak Al Gr Ga
P A P A P A P A P A P A
The teacher plans the
unit around the principle
of a “season”
Management/organizational phase
Team selection phase Pre-season scrimmage phase Regular season phase End of season event
The teacher promotes the
‘affiliation’ concept
Students involved in the process of team
selection X X
Persisting teams for duration of the unit X Teacher promotes
students taking
‘responsibility’
Incorporates student duty roles within
lessons
Establishes contract and/or accountability
for student performance in roles
Teacher holds students accountable X Teacher provides training for referees Teacher utilizes task to train students on
effective verbal communication and
feedback
Teacher adopts a facilitator approach
during interactions with student groups
Teacher encourages students to resolve
conflict within groups
Teacher uses ‘formal
competition’ within unit
plan
A formal schedule of competition is
established
Fair play and sportsman awards utilized Teacher utilizes a form
of ‘record keeping’
within the unit
Teacher provides rubric for scorekeeper
Incorporates peer assessment as part of
record keeping process
Teacher uses
‘culminating event’ near
the end of the season
Culminating event is festive in nature
Teams are easily identifiable (team names,
team colors, team t-shirts) X
Teacher creates
‘festivity’ within the unit
Regular posting of team/individual
performances X
Teacher emphasizes the celebration of fair
play
Percent fidelity in the model 95% 82% 100% 100% 95% 100%
Note: P = planned, A = actual; T= Tryston, GR = Griffin, Ga = Gabbi; Sinelnikov, 2009.
106
APPENDIX A
107
APPENDIX B